When Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, sits down for dinner tonight in
Luxembourg with her 26 European Union colleagues, she will fire Britain’s
opening shot in what promises to be a bitter week-long battle over the
future of Europe.
The dinner, in a dull conference centre, will not be the most glamorous event
Beckett has attended, and it could be one of her last: she is not expected
to survive in the position once Gordon Brown takes over as prime minister on
June 27.
But the meal for foreign ministers marks the unofficial start of this week’s
EU summit (things officially get under way in Brussels on Thursday) and on
the table is a reheated version of the European constitution proposed three
years ago and scuppered by French and Dutch voters 12 months later.
What Britain agrees to sign up to will do much to determine the success or
otherwise of Brown’s first year in office. More than that, say critics, it
could go down in history as a crucial juncture in the development of a
European superstate.
By Thursday, Britain’s fate will be firmly in the hands of Tony Blair,
attending what will be his last EU summit as prime minister. Germany, the
country most keen on the constitution and a federal Europe, is host of the
event and is expected to make a fuss of him.
Three months ago Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, presented Jacques
Chirac, the outgoing French president, with an antique commemorative beer
mug, dating from the time when Napoleon was fighting in Egypt. Blair, after
10 years in power, can also look forward to something to put on the
mantelpiece – and perhaps much more besides.
Yesterday it was confirmed that the French president Nicolas Sarkozy has
discussed with Merkel and other EU leaders the idea of making Blair the EU’s
first full-time president. It is a role that Blair, who has long honed a
presidential demeanour, would surely covet. Indeed it is a job that – with
the right powers attached – could arguably make him more influential on the
world stage than the British prime minister.
Yet the job of full-time European president does not exist and will not exist
unless Blair signs Britain up to the reworked constitution this week. The
question is, can he do it without selling Britain and his mate Gordon down
the river?
A blueprint of the proposals circulated by Merkel to capitals on Thursday
outlined the battles to come by including a six-point list of unresolved
issues.
Her gambit put Eurosceptics on the back foot by pledging to protect “much of
the substance” of the failed constitution rejected two years ago and making
it clear that she had the support of the majority of the 27-nation bloc to
revive it.
True, it is no longer being called a constitution, that being regarded as too
provocative, but many see her “treaty on the functioning of the union” as a
constitution in all but name.
Anybody who doubts that only had to listen to Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the
former French president who headed the convention that drew up the original
document. He told the French newspaper Le Monde that the public was being
led “to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to
them directly”.
Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence party, put it more bluntly. “In
essence this EU treaty will contain the provisions of the failed
constitution but drop the C-word itself,” he said. “It is all an exercise in
deceit.”
That may overstate it, but that the new document contains traps for Britain
there is no doubt. Top of the list of problems for Blair is a German plan to
keep the “legally binding character” of the charter of fundamental rights as
a “cross-reference” in the new treaty.
Britain opposes this as it would make the right to strike enforceable in
European courts and undermine other UK laws. But most member states,
including the 18 who ratified the original constitution, strongly support
it.
A further potential blow to Britain’s interests is a proposed clause that
would give the EU a “single legal personality”, allowing it to join
international organisations or sign international agreements and, say
constitutional experts, thus weaken the role of nation states.
Ironically, any ambitious future president of the EU would, one presumes, be
keen to see this clause implemented as it would significantly extend his
powers.
After an initial discussion of Merkel’s blueprint at the foreign ministers’
dinner tonight, the most sensitive issues will be left to EU leaders on
Thursday, when they gather for what is already being described as a
“three-shirt” summit, with the expectation that talks will drag on until
well in into the weekend. “Croissants at dawn are likely on Saturday,” said
one EU diplomat.
While Blair will be in Brussels negotiating the new treaty, Brown will be
biting his fingernails in his Scottish constituency, wondering whether he
will be inheriting a poisoned chalice.
“The main difference between them is that one can walk away from whatever is
decided, while the other will have to deliver,” said one Whitehall observer.
“Blair only has to worry about his legacy – and it wouldn’t be a huge part of
that anyway – whereas Brown has the potential nightmare of pushing it all
through.”
Though some commentators speculated last week that a final Blair-Brown bust-up
was in the offing, the evidence suggests that the two men are as one on the
issue of the new treaty and have agreed that Britain should at least appear
to give away little.
Indeed some suspect that the only reason Blair has left it this long to leave
Downing Street is to protect Brown from the political fallout that
inevitably follows any significant EU summit. The strategy all along, say
this camp, has been to fix things so Brown starts as prime minister with as
few thorny issues as possible to deal with and a full stock of political
capital.
A senior Foreign Office official who has sat in on the weekly strategy
meetings on the constitution, which started as long ago as Christmas, said:
“I have been really impressed with the way they have worked together on
this. For once they are both on the same page.”
The bottom line for Brown, he added, was to avoid having to hold a referendum
on the treaty at all costs. “We can’t have one, because we’d lose. It’s
that’s simple,” admitted a Brown aide.
The Conservatives, in contrast, will almost certainly call for a referendum on
the issue no matter what decisions are made but Brown’s camp are determined
to tough it out.
“How can the Tories call for a referendum on this, when they voted against
holding a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, which contained far more
extensive changes? I cannot see how their position can change so
dramatically,” said Geoff Hoon, the minister for Europe.
But the fear is that this will not cut much ice with voters or the Eurosceptic
press. Open Europe, a nonparty think tank, says that the creation of
permanent EU president and a single foreign policy representative carries
big implications.
The organisation’s director, Neil O’Brien, said: “This isn’t just about a
change of name. These would be very powerful new posts, and mean that
decisions over crucial foreign policy issues would be increasingly taken in
Brussels.”
Blair and Brown have repeatedly set out their “red lines” on the treaty,
claiming they will not give up the British veto on foreign policy,
employment and criminal law, or allow the charter of fundamental rights to
creep into British law. “In relation to the European charter, I will agree
to nothing that allows Europe to alter our laws without the consent of this
house,” Blair told MPs last week.
It was a sweeping statement that left experts little the wiser as to where he
might be prepared to compromise. Perhaps not surprisingly, his aides have
not been prepared to elaborate on precisely what will and will not be
negotiable.
Yet close observers of summits fear that a sleep-deprived Blair, under intense
pressure from other member states and with an eye to his legacy, could still
cave in early on Saturday.
“If I were Gordon, I would be very worried that Blair will agree to something
in the heat of the moment that he did not intend,” said Sir Christopher
Meyer, a summit regular when at the Foreign Office. “The potential domestic
political ramifications for Gordon are huge.
“I went to loads of these summits with Geoffrey Howe and John Major and I know
how complicated it gets. The pressures on you are huge. You have to have a
bottom line, and stick to it. You have to be prepared to be isolated.”
In the last week Hoon has been dispatched for meetings with his French and
Dutch counterparts, as well as representatives from the Polish government.
The aim is to ensure the summit succeeds, or at least that the blame is
shared if it fails.
Britain, along with the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Poland forms a
gang of four countries seen to be “troublesome” by the 18 countries who have
already ratified the constitution. The Poles are the true wild card and
there is little desire in Brussels to appease them. While Britain’s main
interests have been included in Merkel’s list, the Poles’ main gripe over
voting rights is a glaring omission.
In the past few weeks the ruling Kaczynski brothers have been brandishing the
surreal battlecry “square root or die”– a reference to the new voting system
demand by Warsaw that would see votes calculated on the basis of a country’s
inhabitants in relation to its surface area.
The Kaczynksis face widespread opposition to opening the complicated question
of voting rights over fears that this will unravel everything and scupper a
quick agreement.
“If the Poles stand firm then it will be the biggest threat to the deal. What
the Poles want is what nobody else wants. It is very difficult to see a game
or trade-off,” said Jacki Davis of the European Policy Centre.
“Tony Blair wants a deal next week but if there is no deal then he will go to
strenuous efforts to make sure the Poles get the blame.” The Czechs, who
support Warsaw, are expected to cave in during summit talks, as are the
Dutch, who want the guarantee of a “red card” for their parliament to be
able to veto EU laws.
Blair, despite his desire to go out on a high note in Europe, might have to
accept failure. “It is perfectly possible that the divisions over the
content of this treaty will simply be too great,” a senior Foreign Office
official admitted.
Denis MacShane, the former Europe minister, believes it is highly unlikely
that the prime minister can pull off a genuine coup. “Each time I went with
Tony Blair into that concrete blockhaus in Brussels he groaned,” MacShane
said. “They might as well have inscribed ‘Abandon good spirits all ye who
enter here’ over its glass revolving door.
“Each one of the 27 national leaders enters thinking he or she will emerge
with a big victory. They never do, despite their bravura playing to the
national galleries back home. Compromise and mutual concession is the dirty
little secret at the heart of Europe.”
Even for Blair, this EU treaty may be a compromise too far. But Charles Grant,
director of the Centre for European Reform, says that even if Britain
manages to head off pressure for significant treaty changes this year, the
issue will return to haunt Brown.
“There are some people in Belgium and Luxembourg who think it would be
outrageous for Britain not to accept things we’ve signed up to in the past,”
he said. “Even if there is a willingness to get this one out of the way,
this is not the end of treaty change in Europe.”
Jose Manuel Barroso, the European commission president, last week urged Blair
to “have the courage” to stand up to British public opinion and sign the
treaty. “We have to stand up in front of our national public opinions, not
give up to some of the populisms we have in our member states,” he said.
Sunday Times-YouGov poll
Who should decide whether Britain backs a new European Union treaty?
UK parliament 17%
Voters in a referendum 70%
Don’t know 13%
Would you vote for or against a new treaty?
For 21%
Against 43%
Would not vote 3%
Don’t know 33%
YouGov surveyed a representative sample of 1,753 voters, online, on June 14-15
The whys and wherefores of a European constitution
Q. The EU constitution was supposed to have been killed off two years
ago when French and Dutch voters rejected it. Why is it back?
A. EU leaders promised to try to push through changes despite the
referendum “no” votes. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said she would
make this one of the priorities of her country’s six-month presidency of the
EU, which started in January.
Q. It is not called a constitution any more, so are the proposed
changes only minor?
A. Some symbolic ideas have been abandoned, including enshrining
Beethoven’s Ode to Joy as an EU national anthem and formally adopting the EU
flag. It will be called a “treaty on the functioning of the union” rather
than a constitution. But experts say it retains 90% of the original
proposals and Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the former French president and
drafter of the constitution, said the public was being persuaded to adopt
the constitution’s proposals “without knowing it”.
Q. What are the proposals?
A. Some, which have been accepted by Tony Blair and appear acceptable
to Gordon Brown, include the appointment by EU leaders of a permanent EU
president of the council of ministers. He or she will have responsibility
for arranging summits and pushing the agenda forward. The current six-month
revolving presidency, shared by member states, will stop. The EU will also
have a single foreign policy representative, although he or she will
represent Europe only on issues upon which all countries agree. Countries
will lose automatic entitlement to have an EU commissioner, cutting the
number from 27 to 15. More areas of EU policy will be subject to majority
voting, preventing countries from using their blocking powers.
Q. Does that mean Britain will be forced to adopt policies even if the
government objects?
A. In some cases, but there are likely to be UK opt-outs on justice,
home affairs and rights for migrant workers.
Britain will object to any attempt to make foreign and security policy subject
to majority voting.
Q. What are the real sticking points?
A. The treaty aims to give the EU its own legal status or
“personality”, meaning it could enter into treaties with other countries in
its own right. Germany is attempting to sneak the charter of fundamental
rights into the treaty by giving it legal force.
Q. What is in the charter of fundamental rights?
A. Potentially a great deal. It could allow unions to challenge
Britain’s labour laws by providing new minimum standards on working
conditions, including holiday entitlements, the right to strike and rest
periods. It could also impose new burdens on the National Health Service,
giving everybody the right to preventive healthcare and increasing the scope
for legal action over the quality of treatment. It could increase social
security entitlements, particularly for EU workers in other countries. Some
clauses ostensibly aimed at preventing eugenics could impose restrictions on
IVF clinics, the paying of sperm and egg donors and the use of embryos.
Q. If Britain objects to these things, will the new treaty be
abandoned?
A. Eighteen EU members ratified the old constitution and four more were
ready to do so. France and Holland know they cannot go back to voters with
what looks like a reheated constitution. Poland is angry about changes that
will reduce its voting power and the Czech Republic is sceptical. Britain is
in a minority but not alone. The “maximalists”, who want the old
constitution, may back down to get a small-scale treaty agreed.
Q. Will there have to be a referendum in Britain?
A. Brown will avoid it at all costs, arguing that EU treaty changes
have never required UK referendums in the past. But critics will say that
even the changes Britain is prepared to sign up to represent a significant
step towards a superstate.
