Interesting analysis from European Voice today:

Some members of the European Monetary Union (EMU) – Ireland and Greece obviously, and Italy, too – are discovering that what the International Monetary Fund (IMF) adjudges a global recession is cruelly exposing their failure in the past ten years to adjust to the rigours of membership of a currency union…

But the idea that any country will quit the EMU unilaterally, while it remains a hard-currency club, is mindless.

Long before the printing presses could be greased up to produce reams of new lira, drachma or punt notes, or ‘secretly’ asked businesses and financial institutions to re-programme their computers for a new era of monetary independence, the stampede of deposits from the banks to safer havens offshore would have triggered an economic meltdown. Forget it. The mechanics of leaving the single-currency area unilaterally and out of weakness, notably the pain of the transition to a new currency regime, make it all but inconceivable.

We are, however, already witnessing the beginnings of a process through which the bright hopes for the single currency of a decade ago could begin to dim. One expert calls it the “re-nationalisation” of EU financial market regulation…

Gordon ‘beggar thy EU neighbour’ Brown, the UK prime minister, has led the way in implementing a 1930s-style competitive devaluation to back up his “British jobs for British workers” jingoism…

Protectionism is rife and Neelie Kroes, the European commissioner for competition, is finding she does not have enough fingers to plug the holes in the dyke that the EU constructed long ago to prevent illicit state aids swamping free competition.

Naturally enough, worth reading in full.

Baroness Ashton. Ever heard of her? No? There’s a surprise. Her only qualification for the job seems to be that her full title is Baroness Ashton of Upholland – perhaps dear old Gordon assumed this meant she has something to do with the Netherlands?

Peter Mandelson may have been a discredited tit when he was appointed, but at least he was high-profile and quite blatantly had the ear of the Prime Minister. This dear peer? She may have been made Leader of the House of Lords last year, but she’s barely registered an impact on the public consciousness. She is, however, a staunch Labour loyalist, and the wife of similarly staunch Labour man, semi-influential journalist Peter Kellner, a co-founder of polling organisation YouGov.

Track record on Europe? Well, here are all her speeches mentioning the European Union in the last seven years. No doubt they’ll bear double-checking. From a brief skim through, all that’s stood out for me are the standard parrot phrases of a loyalist who’s memorised the talking points. Which seems to be precisely what Brown wants in Brussels – a bit of a no-mark who can make the right noises, but who hasn’t got much of a brain of their own.

Being harsh? Maybe. After all, one of her old jobs has technically had an EU element to it (along with several others, including the rather odd pairing of the National Archives and the Tribunals Service). But she was only in that post for a year, and the rest of her work history is decidedly of the parochial standard.

But it would, let’s face it, be entirely in keeping with Brown’s track record on UK-EU relations to chuck someone irrelevant and with little knowledge of the EU out to Brussels. He’s barely paid the EU a blind bit of notice since coming to power, and had precious little time for our EU cousins while Chancellor. Indeed, it’s largely down to Brown and his famous “five economic tests” that Blair wasn’t able to use Labour’s remarkable series of majorities over the last ten years to combat the rising euroscepticism of the British people. Those tests shot any pro-EU Labour drive in the foot before it even started through the simple question “So, Mr Blair, if the EU’s so great how come your Chancellor won’t let us join the single currency?”

Gordon Brown has, in other words, finally demonstrated his utter lack of interest in the EU. Hell, even Maggie Thatcher was more constructively engaged with Brussels than Gordon – and we’re in the middle of just the sort of trans-national economic crisis that the EU was in part set up to help counter. You’d be forgiven for imagining that Brown’s forgotten the EU’s existed – especially when it’s a big story that he’s going to deign an important EU crisis summit with his presence.

But hey – Ashton’s a woman! That’s, like, progressive and stuff! And it’s all the rage to appoint women no one’s ever heard of with little in the way of an appropriate CV to important political positions these days, it seems. Go Gordy! You’re with it, man!

I never thought I’d say it, but come back ex-Commissioner Peter Mandelson – all is forgiven. (Sorry, that should now be Lord Mandelson – yet another insanely stupid move on Brown’s part, albeit for entirely domestic reasons. I mean, bringing back someone who’s twice been forced to quit the Cabinet in disgrace and is hated by pretty much the entire country? And entirely unelected to boot? Seriously, Gordon? Do you WANT to lose the next election?)

Just when you thought a government couldn’t get any worse…

Update: Pertinent points from Jon Worth:

Mandelson was playing an important role in WTO negotiations, and Ashton will not be able to replicate Mandelson’s network of contacts, even if she has the opportunity to do so. For I can imagine that the French government is already on the phone to Barroso making sure someone else gets the Trade portfolio and Ashton gets allocated Multilingualism or something similar.

Agreed entirely. Meant to mention that. You can’t possibly have an unknown in as important a portfolio as Trade, no matter how big the member state. Brown’s just downsized Britain’s influence in Europe even further. Nice one, Gordon.

Well, he may have ignored it for months, but now it’s finally taking shape – although it hardly seems to be overly well thought-out.

So, was Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s choice of Bruges to deliver his first EU policy speech symbolic? It is, after all, the scene of the moment when Maggie Thatcher allowed her (entirely understandable) irritation with the then EEC to bubble over into hyperbole and hysteria back in 1988, inspiring the formation of the staunchly anti-EU thinktank the Bruges Group in the process.

Well, considering Miliband quoted the Iron Lady at length in a subsection to his speech headed “Twenty Years on from the Bruges Speech”, you can be certain that he was at least aware of the potential symbolism. But how different is his language, his approach?

Well, it looks like Milibrand – following Brown the other day – is rather playing down the often overly excitable language about just what it is that the EU can hope to achieve:

“The EU is not and never will be a superpower. An EU of 27 nation states or more is never going to have the fleetness of foot or the fiscal base to dominate. In fact economically and demographically Europe will be less important in the world of 2050 that it was in the world of 1950.”

It all sounds rather pessimistic, doesn’t it? Plus it is swiftly followed up by an attempt at limitation not seen since Thatcher’s days: all the EU should be, according to this Miliband/Brown approach, is a model “for regional cooperation between medium-sized and small countries”.

But, of course, that’s not what the EU is. It’s rather more than a simple facilitator of regional cooperation, rather less than a state.

But here comes the point of real interest. Is the Brown/Miliband “regional cooperation” vision of the EU a multi-tier one? It would appear so:

“we must keep the door open, retaining the incentive for change that the prospect of membership provides.

“…Not all countries will be eligible for full membership, or show the will to join. So we should take the European Neighbourhood Policy a step further. We must state clearly that participation is not an alternative to membership, or a waiting room. And we must offer access to the full benefits of the single market…

“The first step would be the accession of neighbouring countries – especially Russia and the Ukraine – to the WTO. Then we must build on this with comprehensive free-trade agreements. The goal must be a multilateral free-trade zone around our periphery – a version of the European Free Trade Association that could gradually bring the countries of the Mahgreb, the Middle-East and Eastern Europe in line with the single-market, not as an alternative to membership, but potentially as a step towards it.”

If this all sounds strangely familiar – if not in the detail then in the general argument – then it’s because this is exactly the same approach Britain has had to Europe for the last four decades. A trading bloc, regional cooperation.

But wait, what’s this?:

“a model power should champion international law and human rights not just internally, but externally too. We need to live by our values and principles beyond our borders, not just within them.”

Does this sound familiar? Well, it should. See Gordon Brown’s speech the other day:

“the timeless values that underpin our policies at home… are also ideals that I believe that it is in our national interest to promote abroad.”

But where Miliband seems to be hinting at European military cooperation as the next logical step to tackle current security challenges, according to the Times he was forced to remove this, and other potentially controversial elements from his speech:

“David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, was humiliated by the Prime Minister yesterday when he was forced to remove pro-European passages from a speech and drop his policy initiative on European defence.”

As the Times notes, in dropping these sections, Britain has been pushed away from Sarkozy. What could have become a long-needed point of unity between Britain and France has instead become a point of further division – and seemingly entirely on Brown’s initiative. And make no mistake, Sarkozy will not have missed this proverbial slap in the face, as the start of Miliband’s speech makes it explicit:

“President Sarkozy has suggested we need a Groupe des Sages to focus on the Europe of 2030. Today I want to enter that debate”

This followed almost immediately by a critique of Sarkozy’s proposals from the other day:

“Protectionism seeks to stave off globalisation rather than manage it”

It’s looking rather like the old Gallic vs Anglo-Saxon foreign policy split is still alive and well.

Is this part of the “new diplomacy” being promised by the Foreign Office since Miliband took over? Choosing locations guaranteed to raise spectres of past confrontations to get everyone in Brussels suspicious from the get-go after months of barely looking in the direction of the Continent, and with Gordon Brown still seemingly utterly uninterested in the whole concept of the EU? Setting up stall in seemingly explicit opposition to the most secure politician on the continent, furthering the Anglo-French divide that has blighted all efforts at serious EU reform (most importantly of the Common Agricultural Policy) for decades?

This doesn’t strike me as a new approach at all. The choice of Bruges for Miliband’s speech was perfect – for it demonstrates that Brown’s EU policy is going to be exactly the same as that of every other British Prime Minister since Heath lost office: try to pretend it isn’t there as much as you can, then spout vague platitudes about free trade, irritate the French, then bugger off again.

Yep, when it comes to the EU, under Brown it seems to be business as usual. Yet another reason for paying no attention to anything Brown and co say on the matter.

More:

The Guardian: Britain scorns France’s plans for EU defence
The International Herald Tribune: Britain says EU can never aspire to become superstate, power to rival US, China
The Telegraph: Miliband: EU ‘must tackle global conflicts’
The Independent: Miliband: EU must be a model power, not a superstate
The Times: Resonant address slips into trap of delusion
Civitas Blog: ‘Outie’ or ‘Innie’? The EU belly button
Open Europe Blog: Miliband at Bruges
Curly’s Corner Shop: Is Miliband’s “vision” out of step
The Midnight Sun (oddly seeming to think that David Miliband is somehow an EU spokesman): E.U.: LOOK OUT, WORLD, WE’RE COMING FOR YOU

Update – yet more:

The Economist’s Certain Ideas of Europe:
The BBC’s Mark Mardell: Miliband’s ad lib
The Bruges Group: Miliband’s ‘Bruges’ Speech: Rebutted
EU Referendum: Creative tension?
Global Power Europe: David Miliband says ‘no’ to a European superpower

The responses have, shall we say, not been positive thus far – either from the pro- or the anti-EU camps. In fact, the only people with nice things to say seem to be – surprise, surprise – over at Labour Home (and even that smacks of “if you haven’t got anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”…)

Not ruling out an election sooner.

This insane hyperbole (“humiliating retreat”? “cling to office”? “extraordinary indecision and extraordinary weakness”? You what?) shows just how worried the Tories still are. Yes, Cameron made a storming speech at the conference the other day, and yes they’ve had a big boost in the polls over the last week or so.

But the one question the advocates of an autumn general election have singularly failed to answer is: “why?”

There are two reasons to have a general election: 1) The government is coming to the end of its legally-limited five year term in office, and 2) The government no longer has a sufficient majority to see legislation through the House of Commons. That’s it.

Brown has a large Commons majority and a good two and a half years left before he legally has to call an election. So why the hell should he? Because the party leader, and therefore Prime Minister, has changed mid-term? So why no elections in 1990, 1976, 1963, 1957, 1955, 1940, etc. etc. etc.? It’s a nonsense.

Yes, Brown could have called an election to get a re-affirmed mandate for his government. But the time to do that was the moment he took over from Blair. Calling one three months later – after riding high in the polls all summer following a series of moderately well-handled crises and a succession of Tory cock-ups – would smack of dangerous opportunism. For what’s to stop any government from repeatedly calling snap elections when they’re temporarily doing well once that precedent’s set?

Brown should have said more forcefully on taking over that he was going to serve the full term (but you can understand why he didn’t – after all, Labour were elected on the promise that Blair was soon to be going). That he didn’t is most likely because he didn’t think the Tories were so desperate as to keep up the election calls all summer, because – excluding the last two weeks of Tory bounceback – an election at any point in the last four months would have seen yet another Labour landslide.

And as for the electorate? Less than two-thirds bothered to show for the election two years ago – what makes anyone think they could be bothered now?

It’s too soon after Brown’s takeover to see just how similar or different he is from Blair, and I doubt if anyone could tell you what David Cameron stands for. (Hell, I’m more than averagely politically aware, and I genuinely haven’t got a clue about either of them… In fact, I’m not even sure where my constituency’s boundary lies any more, since the re-jig a year or so back…) We all need at least another year of Brown in charge to see the real him, preferably two. And Cameron, lest we forget, is still so new that Brown had already been Chancellor for four years by the time young Dave entered parliament…

A snap, three week election campaign would merely ensure that the public is even more uncertain about which of these two slightly mysterious, little-known figures would be best to lead the country. And uncertainty in politics breeds both apathy and resentment far more than does a Prime Minister deciding not to bow to pressure from the opposition and launch an expensive and unnecessary mid-term election.

What with the ongoing spat with Russia (hyped out of all proportion, I reckon, and hope I’m not proved wrong), the fact that our dear new Prime Minister has made his first overseas jaunt while in office seems to have been largely forgotten. The fact that Brown managed a solid three weeks in the UK before nipping off abroad – approximately 400% longer than Tony Blair ever managed during his ten years in office* – has likewise received little comment. (Blair’s first overseas visit, by the way, was to the US, which could be significant…)

But why, with so much to do in Europe, Germany? Why suck up to Angela Merkel, with her relatively unstable coalition and two weeks after she passed the EU presidency on to Portugal? Why not follow the EU presidency itself? Why not head to Brussels and meet Commission head Barroso? Why not try to form a good relationship with Europe’s most secure and powerful politician, Nicholas Sarkozy (who he’s due to meet on Friday)? Why not Sarkozy and Merkel at the same time, in an EU big three spitroast?

Well, according to Der Spiegel, it’s an indication of a newly-strengthened bilateral love-in between the UK and Germany, largely revolving around Merkel herself, and primarily thanks to her stewardship of the EU treaty talks that ended up with something with which Britain (if not British eurosceptics) can be fairly happy for its (relative) lack of radical changes. Back in the UK, the Times has dubbed the Brown/Merkel love-in a “new European axis” – though one can only assume that the pun was unintentional…

But is that all? While Brown was in Berlin, one of the areas specifically mentioned was terrorism and the need for closer cooperation across the EU. Merkel was elected, in part, on a tough on terror stance, and has long been spouting hard rhetoric that – to wishy-washy liberals like me – could sound a tad concerning:

“Our open, liberal societies have proven useful retreats for terrorists. The assassins made use of the civil liberties they were offered without adopting in any way whatsoever the civil values associated with this social order… it is important to strike a new balance between liberal, civil rights on the one hand and measures that ensure the protection and security of the citizens on the other.”

That was back in 2002 – and it’s a relatively safe bet that had Merkel been Chancellor back then, Germany would have been far more actively involved in The War Against Terror, rather than ending up lumped in with France as terrorist appeasers.

Meanwhile, having had a couple of failed terrorist attacks within a couple of days of taking office, Gordon Brown must feel like he has to do something to prove that he’s going to be tough on terror. He’s always been a fan of the controversial idea of 90 days detention without trial to help combat terrorism, and is currently under fresh pressure to reintroduce the rejected legislation. It remains, however, a highly contentious issue, and there’s no guarantee that he’d be able to get it through the Commons – and a defeat this early in his premiership would be highly damaging.

And here’s where Merkel and her long-term support for radical approaches to tackling terrorism could well come in – not to mention Germany’s long post-war tradition of stifling civil liberties in the name of security through its banning of swastikas, Nazi salutes and the like to discourage fascism. (Not that the policy has worked, but since when did failure discourage the faith of the ideological?)

As has been noted here before (and at length by me elsewhere), Labour under Blair were always rather keen to use the mechanisms of the EU to avoid the necessity of votes in the British parliament on controversial issues, often revolving around clamping down on civil liberties in the name of The War Against Terror.

If Brown and Merkel team up to introduce new anti-terror measures, the combined influence of Europe’s two biggest economies could well be enough to convince the rest of the EU that their proposals are worthwhile. Because, let’s face it, one of the best ways in which the EU can prove its usefulness beyond being just a customs union is to help combat international crime, of which terrorism is the most high-profile example. It’s in the interest of any pro-integration types to back tough counter-terrorism measures, which is why there have been so many attempts to bring in EU-wide terrorism legislation in the last few years.

So, is Brown sucking up to Merkel to get the 90 days detention idea put through at an EU level? They certainly don’t seem to have had much to say about the new EU treaty, which Merkel got through a few weeks back, nor on the future of the EU in any broad sense.

Considering that Brown, during his time as Chancellor, always appeared to have seen the EU as a nuisance that’s best ignored and sidelined as much as possible, is the emphasis on the meeting being between nation states, rather than “EU partners” also significant? Will his meeting with Sarkozy reveal any new strategies? Or is it still – as I suspect, despite all this speculation – far too early to tell just what Brown’s got planned?

* May be a lie

- Foiled terrorist attack
- Public service sector strike
- Prisoners released early
- People overreacting to one-off events by calling for wholesale reform
- Left-wingers feeling alienated
- Tories making futile noises they know will have no effect
- Lib Dems being useless and indecisive

I’ll keep my fingers crossed for the outcome of the Cabinet meeting that’s just starting – that they won’t get distracted by an unexploded car bomb (which used to be ten a penny during the IRA campaigns), and get on with explaining precisely how the government is going to work now that various departments seem to have been split in two or abolished and we have a Lord Chancellor sitting in the House of Commons.

More later, no doubt.

Update: Gordon explains some of the departmental reorganisation in that wonderfully stilted blend of management speak and Blair-like platitudes he uses when trying to be populist.

Still no explanation of precisely what Jack Straw’s job is, though – I’ve even been skimming through the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to try and work out what role the “Justice Secretary” might have. Very confusing.

Update note: It’s entirely possible that there should be a question-mark in the headline to this post. He’s not stupid enough to have made this move without thinking it through, but I can’t for the life of me work out what he’s got planned.

Update 2: This post is now largely obsolete, and so has been edited down – Jack Straw is indeed Lord Chancellor. Had a bit of a scare there though – and it’s still very confusing…

—

Via email and the like, I’ve been having heated discussions with a couple of mates about precisely what’s happened to the office of Lord Chancellor in this reshuffle. It looks rather like Brown may have made a major cock-up, and the current TV coverage hasn’t mentioned it a jot.

[Update edit - removed paragraph]

There is, technically, no constitutional reason why Jack Straw couldn’t be Lord Chancellor while remaining in the Commons, from what I can tell. But it’d be very, very odd indeed and I can’t see any way it would work in practice. [Update edit - removed speculation]

What the hell is going on? [Update edit - removed sentence]

They’re now announcing a special Cabinet session to change the constitution – but how, exactly, and where does the Cabinet get the authority to do that?

Because, you see, in The Wizard of Oz, they all head off to the Emerald city in the expectation that the Wizard will be the answer to all their ills, only for him to be revealed as little more than a confidence trickster with a gift for spouting platitudes.

Clever, isn’t it?

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I’m not in comedy. I do love the expression on Jack Straw’s face though… (Straw, see? He’s the scarecrow, like wot’s full of straw! And Alan Johnson, who didn’t have the guts to run against Brown, is the cowardly lion! And Harriet Harman’s Dorothy – because she’s female! And David Miliband’s the tin man for some reason! Hurrah!)

(Sensible post later, most likely – in the mean time, no more Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary! Yaaaaaaay! Oh, and you may want to brush up on the latest influx of unelected backroom advisers…)

A revealing interview with Geoff Hoon in Le Figaro (in English) has confirmed something I’ve suspected for quite a while now – the UK simply does not have an EU policy.

Hoon, following his poor showing with the Defence portfolio was demoted to Leader of the House, which he also messed up, leading to further demotion to Europe Minister. On the surface, Hoon’s appointment could have been seen as a sensible move – he did, after all, spend almost a decade as an MEP, so should know what he’s talking about. But this is Geoff Hoon we’re talking about. In his year in the post, what contributions has he made to the EU debate that’s been raging in other member states? Let’s see…

On December 6th 2006, Hoon asserted that “The Government have a very clear policy on the European constitution,” and that policy was set out in a Written Ministerial Statement of 5th December 2006. The key points?

1) Pursuing British interests
2) Modernisation and effectiveness
3) Consensus
4) Subsidiarity (working at the right level)
5) Use of existing Treaties
6) Openness

How well has this been done? Well, considering that no changes to the EU can occur without consensus, point 3 strikes ma as the most important. How well has the UK done in building a consensus of opinion in the EU in the months since Hoon outlined the (decidedly vague and management jargon-heavy) British approach?

- 20th February 2007, Geoff Hoon: “There is no consensus among member states at this stage”
- 20th March 2007, Geoff Hoon: “At present there is no consensus among EU Governments”
- 1st May 2007, Geoff Hoon: “There is at present no consensus among EU partners on the way forward”

Oh dear.

But go back to the interview with Hoon in Le Figaro, and little wonder Britain’s not managed to get consensus. For one thing, it’s pretty clear that our Europe Minister – and therefore our government as a whole – is concerned less with what actually happens in terms of EU reform, but in how it appears, as with an EU foreign minister:

“We are worried because the title ‘minister’ would inevitably have a state connotation. But the aim is not to create a European state. This title will have to be reconsidered”

And again, “These are politically sensitive issues”, and the classic “We will have to discuss the details” followed swiftly by “I do not want to go into details”…

Meanwhile, has Hoon actually pressed ahead with any major meetings? Well, no. The big EU meetings, face-to-face with heads of state and the like, have been handled by Tony Blair (when he can be bothered, or if he’s been invited…). The regular policy discussions are handled at the monthly meetings of EU Foreign ministers, which Hoon’s boss Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett attends.

So, has Margaret Beckett got anywhere?

- 1st May 2007, Margaret Beckett: “At present, there remains no consensus among EU partners”

Oh dear… And as her opposite number William Hague noted when Mrs Beckett reported back from the European Council in December, “The Foreign Secretary… failed to mention one thing—the European constitution.”

This prompted a long and rambling response from Mrs Beckett that ended quite simply and revealingly with, “we will see what proposals are put forward”.

Yep, it’s John Major’s “wait and see” all over again. Which has, it would appear, been the British government’s policy towards the EU for at least two years now. As Hoon’s statements in that interview with Le Figaro make clear, no one in the British government is willing to go on record saying anything other than the most vague nonsense about the next steps for the EU.

Do we support a multi-speed Europe, as proposed again yesterday by Romano Prodi (and as Nicholas Sarkozy seems to be vaguely pushing for with his “Mediterranean Union” idea)? It seems an obvious position for Britain to adopt, after all – avoid all the nasty ramifications of the constitution, get fresh opt-outs in economic and judicial policies, and don’t hamper our partners at the same time.

If we don’t support different tiers of EU participation, are we simply looking to pick a fight with our neighbours by putting the brakes on their plans for further integration? Does Gordon Brown henchman Ed Balls’ talk of a “hard-headed pro-Europeanism” indicate a new way forward, or is it simply (as I strongly suspect) the same old prevarication dressed up in fancy new language? Does anyone in government even know what Britain’s EU policy is any more?

And the next UK Prime Minister’s attitude towards the EU? It’s anyone’s guess, as he has yet to make his position even slightly clear. All we do know is that it’s not on his list of priorities – which hardly bodes well for the future of EU reform.

As one of the largest and most economically powerful countries in the EU, the UK should be at the forefront of discussions – not just to have her say, but also because no other EU countries can possibly reach the “consensus” that is Britain’s declared aim without knowing the position of one of the big three. Yet throughout the German presidency Britain has shirked her European responsibilities, just as she did when the UK herself held the EU presidency. Once again, the UK is holding the EU back – more subtly and less confrontationally than Poland, perhaps, but just as effectively.

If the EU is ever going to get a consensus on the future of the EU, the core problem has to be tackled – and that problem is not nor ever has been the precise nature of the much-needed institutional reforms, it’s the ambiguous attitude and apathetic reluctance of the United Kingdom whenever the European Union is mentioned. It’s almost as if the British government has its fingers in its ears, humming to itself, pretending that the EU doesn’t exist and that maybe if they ignore it long enough it’ll just go away. Well, surprise surprise – it won’t. Consensus doesn’t come without discussion, the one thing the British government seems to hate above all else.

Will Gordon Brown change anything when he becomes Prime Minister? Well, just like the government when it comes to the EU, we’ll have to wait and see. But I doubt it very much indeed.

Update: More on this from the Telegraph

On Sunday, the News of the World claimed that Tony Blair has already decided to ratify the EU constitution – with or without the support of either the public or his party (let alone his heir, Gordon Brown).

Today, the News of the World’s weekday sister paper, The Sun – despite being owned by the same company, and despite usually adopting whatever political line big boss Rupert Murdoch wants – had precisely the opposite story:

TONY BLAIR and Gordon Brown have vowed not to let in the hated EU Constitution through the back door.

The Prime Minister and his expected successor plan to stop Euro fanatics resurrecting a bid to give Brussels more power…

Next month EU leaders will discuss a new “declaration” to celebrate the union.

But its precise contents are unknown — causing worry among UK politicians who fear a further EU power grab.

And privately EU leaders will also talk about a new constitution at the summit.

Number 10 insists they will not agree to including elements of the old constitution

That pretty much refutes every single claim that the News of the World made on Sunday, from the contents of the declaration through to Blair’s enthusiasm for the existing text.

Which means, of course, that you can probably trust this report just as much as you could trust Sunday’s. They’re most likely both nonsense.

Were I the sort for conspiracy theories, I might suggest that the two utterly opposed stories were run in such quick succession because dear Mr Murdoch – notoriously anti-EU throughout his time as a newspaper magnate in the UK – wants to demonstrate through the reaction of his readers precisely which course of action should be taken. And in case you can’t tell which one that is:

The Sun Says…

The Sun instinctively mistrusts edicts from Brussels. They are almost never in our nation’s interests. This will be no exception.

Tony Blair has pledged to fight tooth and nail to prevent the rejected constitution being sneaked in by the back door.

We will hold him to that — as we will any future Prime Minister.

By “we”, read Rupert Murdoch – the owner of the top-selling Sunday broadsheet the Sunday Times, top-selling Sunday tabloid the News of the World, top-selling daily broadsheet the Times, top-selling daily tabloid the Sun, plus dominant satellite/digital television broadcaster Sky.

This is Rupert Murdoch using his power to ensure that “Europe” is not an issue at the next general election, by blackmailing both Labour and the Tories into doing what he wants – rejecting the constitution completely and utterly.

It couldn’t be clearer – the News of the World article was a teaser trailer to get up a bit of reaction. Two days later, with the reaction in, the Sun comes up with the real story.

There may be no facts in the Sun’s story either – but what it does have is detailed instructions for Blair, Brown and the rest of the Labour party, letting them know precisely what their next course of action had better be if they don’t want the single most powerful media group in the country to smash them with all its might.

Update: Just realised this was actually yesterday’s Sun. Murdoch works faster than I thought…

Update 2: Murdoch is definitely up to something…