Category Archives: EU Constitution

Back from Brussels – and a new Nosemonkey blog

Posted on by

The Grand Place, Brussels

A delightful time was had by all at last night’s launch debate/party for Tomorrow’s Europe in Brussels – except my feet, which got pounded by the picturesque Brussels cobbles (thanks to be being too cheap to get a taxi) and then soaked by the decidedly less picturesque Brussels rain (for the self-same reason).

An array of intriguing people also met, from high-profile politicos through to the chap behind tip-top French superblog Euros du Village, and in my absence the new project that took me to Belgium has gone live, so go have a look-see:

dLiberation – a Nosemonkey-edited look at deliberative democracy, EU participation, and the future of the European Union, brought to you by openDemocracy.

I’ve got two vaguely introductory posts up so far, which should give you an idea of what we’re hoping to achieve, with many more to follow – from me and a range of experts from academics to MEPs through a few choice Brussels bureaucrats, bloggers and more. Go have a gander:


Introduction to dLiberation

Cloudy skies over tomorrow’s Europe

Continue reading →

Shouting into the storm – and EU 2.0

Posted on by

Guardian

Everyone in the UK knows that of the national daily papers, it’s really only the barely-read (and increasingly unreadable) Guardian (c.311,000 sales per issue) and Independent (c.190,000 sales per issue) who are in favour of the European Union.

The Times (c.595,000) and Sun (c.2,916,000) follow their owner Rupert Murdoch’s eurosceptic lead. The Telegraph (c.833,000) and Mail (c.2,205,000) play to the middle-England, vaguely xenophobic gallery. The People (c.667,000) is also instinctively anti-EU in most of its approaches, most of the time. The Express (c.735,000) does what the Mail does, only with less panache. If you count the similarly unthinking Star (c.667,000) and Sport (c.93,000) as newspapers, they’re also primarily anti-EU on the rare occasions they bother to mention it.

Then there’s the effectively EU-neutral Mirror (c.1,425,000) – which will run anti-EU pieces quite happily, but also take on pro-EU government propaganda just to be different to the Sun – and largely impartial Financial Times (c.130,000).

So, daily – according to those ABC figures – that makes 13,055,000 anti-EU newspaper sales and 1,555,000 EU-neutral sales, compared to just 501,000 pro-EU newspaper sales.
Continue reading →

The botox treaty and the end of the EU

Posted on by

Botox

A fun little article on Europe in 2057, combined with Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s reiteration of the UK government’s position on a referendum over the new EU treaty, has got me pondering once again. (Warning – it’ll be a long one…)

It all starts from the fact that – and as I argued earlier this month – the new EU treaty simply doesn’t do what it needs to.

In setting up an EU president (with a maximum term of just five years) and marginally streamlining (via a – relatively – minor expansion of qualified majority voting) the process by which the EU can bring new laws and regulations into effect (because, obviously, we haven’t got enough already), it provides mere cosmetic fixes for deep structural issues while altogether ignoring some of the most vital underlying problems.

After all, where’s the vitally-needed rethink on the Common Agricultural Policy, the single most indefensible aspect of the EU’s existence? Where’s the fresh take on the Common Fisheries Policy? Where’s the expansion of democratic accountability, the significant increase in the power of the European Parliament, the long-promised massive reduction in the power of the Commission? Hell, where’s the logical and fair redistribution of political power and EU subsidies across the full 27 member states which was, after all, the primary reason for a new EU treaty in the first place?

It is, in other words, the international treaty equivalent of whacking some lipstick on the elephant man, the proverbial polishing of a turd.
Continue reading →

The new EU Reform Treaty: pointless

Posted on by

The lovely EU flag

So, I’ve been slowly chugging through the tediousness that is the EU’s draft Reform Treaty.

Packed with boredom and predictability, with no real surprises and very few really important changes to the way the EU currently works, it’s one of the dullest documents I’ve had the misfortune to read in quite a while. Which, let’s face it, is hardly surprising considering it’s taken years of petty squabbling and bland compromises to get agreement on the thing. It is, however, rather easier to read than the old Constitution text, strikes me as a fair bit shorter too – and also seems to be full of both contradictions and missed opportunities, which should allow lawyers, politicians, journalists and analysts to argue over precisely what it means and achieves for years to come.

But first, what does the thing actually set out change?

The main new introductions are – from what I can tell – as follows: Continue reading →

On the new EU treaty, the importance of terminology, and the case for a referendum

Posted on by

Our dear Eurosceptic friends have long been preparing themselves to make the argument “if it looks like a constitution, sounds like a constitution, then it’s a constitution”. Now that the replacement treaty is (almost) there, it’s time to see if they have a point.

Here (WARNING: PDF) is the summary of the recent summit, containing the guidelines to which the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) will be working when drawing up the final treaty document.

That, so far, is all we have to go on. Yes, there have been countless proposals over the last couple of years, and Angela Merkel drew up numerous versions of possible European Constitution replacements, but until these guidelines were agreed over the weekend, all that was academic. Continue reading →

Well spank me silly and call me a rooster

Posted on by

I wasn’t expecting that. Not in a month of dodgy backroom discussions, bad compromises, and shoddy short-term attempts at political face-saving.

Yep – they’ve actually struck a deal on a new EU treaty.

However, I’ll have to reserve judgement on the thing until I’ve had a chance to read it – and considering it was only agreed a few hours ago, I’ll need a bit of time on that one…

Some things it does seem to be keeping from the old constitution no one can really – if they think about it for half a moment – argue with:

- more power for Parliament (i.e. more democracy and accountability)
- a weaker Commission (i.e. more democracy and accountability)
- a proper president (i.e. – hopefully – more democracy and accountability)

Others kept on have less obvious immediate benefits, like the EU foreign minister (after all, what’s the point when there’s nothing like foreign policy agreement across all 27 member states, and we’re pretty much all members of NATO anyway?). But all that really sounds like is giving Javier Solana a fancier job title.

The reduction of veto powers is also going ahead – essential for any movement on pretty much any issue, especially with the likes of the current Polish government throwing their weight around – and that too is going to give the Eurosceptics plenty of room for ranting shouts of lost sovereignty and the like.

But then, let’s face it, when it comes to the EU, the Eurosceptics are always going to find something to moan about.

Anyway, first reaction: Yet another botched compromise and yet more delaying tactics (they’ve put off restructuring the voting weights until 2014 – when, they’re no doubt hoping, the current Polish government will no longer be in power to veto the new proposals.

More detailed analysis some point in the next few days, most likely.

(Oh, and sorry for the radio silence here recently – an insanely hectic week in the real world. Of which more if/when it all comes off…)

More reactions:

The Economist’s Europe Blog (reporting at 2:30am) – “a ridiculously drawn-out Brussels summit is set to end with a deal that pleases nobody. Business as usual, in short.”

England Expects – “Sarko tells us that France wins, Blair says that the UK wins, Merkel says Europe wins. It’s an odd game when everybody is a winner.”

Mark Mardell (BBC Europe Editor) – “As for those who support the European Union, the pragmatists will be relieved and the idealists mortified. The Merkels, Sarkozys, Barrosos and possibly even Browns of this world will be relieved that a union of 27 states can still, just about, reach an agreement… There will, again, be talk of an inner core pressing ahead alone. As the outgoing Belgian prime minister has pointed out, there already is one: the countries that are in the euro, don’t have border controls and co-operate on policing. They will feel a glimmer of hope that even if the steps are tiny, then at least they are going in the right direction.”

International Herald Tribune – “Failure would have damaged Europe’s aspirations to improve its stature on the world stage at a time when the union is striving to become an equal partner with Washington and play a leading role on global issues like climate change, the Middle East and an assertive Russia.”

Telegraph – “The new treaty – due to be signed by the end of this year and come into effect in 2009 – will create a new post of President of Europe and a single legal identity for the EU, allowing it to sign up to international deals. But it grants the UK an opt-out on a charter of human and social rights, retains Britain’s independent foreign policy and tax and benefit arrangements and allows the Government in Westminster to “opt in” to those parts of EU judicial and crime policy it chooses.”

Financial Times – “Although stripped of its grand title and symbols of statehood like a flag and anthem, the new treaty contains many of the constitution’s main ideas for making the enlarged EU more efficient and coherent on the world stage… But Mr Blair’s failure to stop Mr Sarkozy watering down the competition references in the treaty infuriated Gordon Brown”

Deutsche Welle – “Blair largely succeeded in sticking to the four ‘red line’ conditions he set for agreement on the new treaty — that Britain would not cede control over foreign policy, its judicial and police system, tax and social security rules, and an EU charter of fundamental rights.”

Independent – “At lunchtime, Mr Blair was happy with his deal with the French President and his spokesman said French ‘sensitivities’ could be addressed. But Mr Brown’s intervention forced him to return to the negotiating table. A legally binding protocol stressing the EU’s belief in competition was then added to the ‘mini-treaty’ after talks involving Mr Blair, M Sarkozy and José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president.”

Guardian – “While the Blair camp argued it had defended all the key British positions against Brussels’s interference in the British legal system and legislation, the incoming Brown government is nonetheless certain to face a storm of protest from the Eurosceptic press, and the Conservative opposition demanding a referendum on Europe’s new “reform treaty” replacing the defunct 2004 constitution.”

EU Observer – “The result, full of compromises, opt-out opportunities and special texts for certain countries, is not going to give rise to a treaty that wins any beauty contests: easier-to-grasp names such as EU ‘laws’ have been dropped in order to maintain the current ‘regulations’ and ‘directives’ seen as less symbolic of statehood; the flag, anthem, motto and name ‘constitution’ fell by way of the same argument.”

New York Times – “Failure would have damaged Europe’s aspirations to improve its stature on the world stage at a time when the European Union is striving to become an equal partner with Washington and play a leading role on global issues like climate change, the Middle East and an assertive Russia. It would also have severely damaged Mrs. Merkel, who had staked Berlin’s prestige on a successful outcome now, when it holds the European Union’s rotating presidency.”

Le Monde has a breakdown of what the new treaty will contain (in French, of course)

Meanwhile, “mastermind” of the piss-poor constitutional treaty, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, is still blathering on about the popularity of his baby on his shiny new blog. I know that having a still-born child must be traumatic, but you’d think he’d be over it by now.

And finally, here’s the summary of the summit (WARNING: .PDF) – thankfully only 32 pages rather than the hundreds of the old constitution… This looks like it covers the majority of what will be the final treaty text.

In-depth analysis soon. Promise. (Probably…)

Update: EU Referendum (having recently had some nice, sensible EU posts after a militaristic few months) goes back to playing to the batty eurosceptic gallery: “a naked coup d’etat attempt”.

Heh! Funny paranoid patriots done gone all hyperbolic and silly again. I also like “the European Union – as represented by the European Council – is seeking to dictate to the member states what it shall (and shall not) include in a treaty”.

Erm… The Council of the European Union is made up of the heads of each EU member state. Wouldn’t “the heads of the EU member states are seeking to tell their own countries what they are going to include in the treaty” be slightly more accurate?

The UK’s current EU policy: nonexistent

Posted on by

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

Ten (or so) bits of weekend reading

Posted on by

1) A handy short explanation of why I’ve been writing about the EU constitution here a lot recently.

2) A new bilingual blog aggregator type thing from new(ish) French news channel France 24, designed to provide an insight into the increasingly fascinating French elections. Ignore the fact that they asked to republish some recent posts of mine (oddly dropping all the links in the process), it could be handy over the next couple of months.

3) The funniest news story of the week – Slobbo the Vampire.

4) A triple bill from the Economist: Europe is united only by its contradictions ; How much does the European Union really encourage competition? ; and a handy overview of the economies of Eastern Europe

5) Talking economics, an introduction to economics even I can understand

6) Talking things I don’t understand being helpfully explained, a guide to Finnish politics in three parts (one, two, three), with more on the aftermath of the recent elections (and, elsewhere, a similar analysis of the results of Estonia’s elections a week ago)

7) Newsweek on the future of Europe – “Europe, it seems, is increasingly split—not along class or racial lines, but between its young and its old” (counter with an hysterical and hyperbolic Christopher Hitchens reviewing a seemingly even more hysterical Mark Steyn – assuming you like a bit of borderline racist froth)

8) Speaking of highly contentious (generally) right-wing assertions, a review I’d missed on a book exploring “Europe’s anti-Americanism” (and another take)

9) Being a journalist in Russia is a dangerous game – so much so, the only way to cope is to laugh in despair. And two recent examples of dead Russian journalists…

10) Finally, evidence is increasingly beginning to build that Britain is not quite so separate from the rest of Europe as many would like to believe – thanks to the beauty of science, the evidence is apparently building that we may have more DNA in common with Basques than with Saxons…

Cameron and the EU Constitution

Posted on by

Looks like Dave’s finally making vague moves to lay out his approach to the EU in somewhat more clear terms than “we don’t like the EU much, but we won’t tell you quite how much” and “We’ll quit the biggest centre-right group in the European Parliament – in the face of opposition from almost all the Tory MEPs due to the inevitable loss of influence that will bring – but we won’t tell you when, exactly”.

But has he actually clarified anything, or just taken a line out of Sarkozy’s book and learned how to say nothing much at all while rattling on for quite a while? Hard to say, sadly…

In any case, this week’s EU week in Toryland.

Today we get Camoron (I’ll leave that in as a Freudian typing slip) telling Blair to “come clean” on the EU, by which he seems to mean “destroy Britain’s diplomatic bargaining position by outright rejecting any sort of constitution in any shape or form”.

This follows his article earlier in the week, co-written with Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, “Building an EU that we can all be proud of“, and his speech in Brussels, which purportedly set out the Cameron Tories’ approach to the EU. (That approach being “cautiously, because we don’t really understand it”, from initial glances…)

Elaib at England Expects has fisked Camon’s speech fairly nicely (albeit from a rather different ideological standpoint from mine), but still, let’s not be unfair. Sooner or later the Tories are going to come up with a workable and sensible EU policy – why not now?

On the surface – as so often seems to be the case with Cameron – all seems well, with much of the rhetoric being stuff I can fully support: First from the article:

“Fifty years after the Treaty of Rome, we have a new Europe, facing new challenges and with a new generation of leaders. But we have the same EU, still too attached to the tenets of centralisation and regulation and still too interested in itself, rather than worldwide challenges… A new, positive agenda for Europe means reconnecting it to these urgent priorities. It means moving towards a new flexibility and dynamism.”

Then from the speech:

“People in Europe have an ever-increasing feeling that something is going wrong, that an untransparent, complex, intricate, mammoth institution has evolved… grabbing ever greater competences and areas of power; that the democratic control mechanisms are failing: in brief, that it cannot go on like this”

So, nothing radical there, but acknowledging the need for serious reform. Good stuff. But what sort of reform, exactly? Cameron again relies heavily on his “3G Europe” buzzwords “globalisation, global warming and global poverty”, but it’s unclear precisely what his solutions to any of these are – or indeed whether at least one of them even exists. Is the “green Tory” thing he seems so keen on really so much of a potential vote winner that he’s going to apply it to the EU as well? I can’t see it myself, and here it seems little more than a distraction from the key issues.

Still, back to what he actually says. He says his plan is to “work to create a flexible Europe by building alliances with those who share our interests and our ideas”. Which means precisely nothing.

What is Cameron’s vision of “a flexible Europe”? Sounds good, certainly, but does this mean a “multi-tier” Europe, a “two-speed” Europe, a “core” Europe or something else as yet unproposed? As Nanne at DJ Nozem explained at the weekend, there’s all sorts of different options, and nothing that anyone’s worked out sufficiently for it to be plausible to implement.

Nonetheless, journalist and Tory MEP Daniel Hannan was surprisingly impressed with this passage from Cameron’s speech in particular:

Just as member states have in the past agreed to transfer competences to the EU, so it should be possible to move in the opposite direction. How can we enshrine the principle that powers can be returned to member states — not as a vague aspiration, but as a central element of the legal architecture of the Union? What are the tasks that we can return to national or local governments?

Reading between the lines, this does indeed seem to be suggesting a multi-tier Europe, where the UK (for example) can pull back a bit while more enthusiastic member states can press on. It’s certainly not clear, however – and does, as Hannan points out, go against the founding Treaty of Rome’s specific commitment to “an ever-closer union”.

Hannan, it would seem, is quite happy with his leader’s new approach:

David Cameron is not simply drawing up a wish-list. He is proposing a structural overhaul, so that powers could, in future, pass up and down between Brussels and the national capitals as the states decide…

The core, Carolingian nations would doubtless want to continue with their palaeo-federalism: a European Army, a European police force, a European president, a European constitution. But the trading, maritime peoples on Europe’s periphery might begin to loose their bonds: to remain in a free trade area, but withdraw from the accompanying political structures. They might, indeed, link up with the EFTA countries, which already have such a deal and which, largely in consequence, enjoy the highest GDP per capita in Europe…

David Cameron spoke with the air of a man who had given his words considerable thought. The text itself bore the tell-tale spoor of reworking by several hands. And, most important, the words came accompanied by action: an international commission on the repatriation of power, and a new group in the European Parliament to act as its delivery vehicle.”

It is this international commission – the Movement for European Reform which will decide if this new drive succeeds or fails – because it looks like it is the commission which will come up with the actual policies and proposals (which, as so often with Cameron, don’t yet appear to have been formulated…)

Cameron, to be fair to him, has identified the majority of the EU’s biggest problems. If Hannan’s reading of the new Tory approach is correct, Cameron is also pushing towards a version of the multi-tier Europe that I personally favour as a (very complex and potentially disastrous, admittedly) solution to the current EU deadlock. The fact that he makes noises supporting future Turkish, Ukrainian and former Yugoslavian applications for membership is likewise welcome. Whether his odd initial alliance with the Czechs will last, let alone expand into a genuinely continent-wide reform movement, is unclear. But he seems to be full of good intentions – and shush about that “road to hell” business…

But will the Cameron-backed Movement for European Reform be able to come up with any concrete, workable proposals – or is this yet another, albeit slightly fancier-looking stage in the ongoing Tory approach to the EU – never do today what can be put off until, preferably, you’re no longer in a position to have to make a decision on it. Is Cameron serious with this attempt to build a consensus on radical reform for the EU – which should only be welcomed – or is he simply prevaricating once again? Unfortunately, it seems we’ve also got little choice but – to borrow a phrase from John Major that seems strangely appropriate once again – to wait and see…

Stranger things have happened than the Conservative party shaking off its internal divisions over the EU and coming up with workable alternatives. I can’t think of any off the top of my head, it must be said, but still…

Update: More takes I’d missed:

1) Pro-EU Jon Worth (Critical)
2) Anti-EU Chris (Critical)
3) Comparatively unbiased Transatlantic Assembly (Critical)

You can’t please all of the people all of the time, it’d seem. Cameron appears not to have pleased many people at all… I’ll continue to withhold judgement until I can tell what, if anything, it is he’s intending.

“The independence of France and the future of Europe”

Posted on by

Centre-right French presidential candidate Nicholas Sarkozy (currently the front-runner) has been doing a bit more to set out his attitude towards the EU. He’s already announced the that he thinks (fairly sensibly) that the existing EU constitution should be heavily revised, proposing a “mini” constitution to pass essential reforms this year, with further deliberation to follow.

Now he’s going into what looks like a bit more detail, with a speech attempting to shake off those suggestions of anti-Americanism (that were pretty much inevitable for any candidate coming from the same party as Chirac – or, indeed, any candidate who happens to be French…) as well as promising a new French approach to the EU.

He’s pretty good, this chap, as proved by the fact that he somehow manages to get in phrases that would normally seem utterly contradictory – some appealing to pro-EU types, some to the antis. (For my eurosceptic friends, check out his analysis of the current state of the EU in the third paragraph… You’ll doubtless take it as proof of everything you’ve been claiming about how wide-ranging the EU’s influence now is – but remember, that’s just, like, his opinion, man…)

I have two priorities, the independence of France and the future of Europe…

Our most urgent foreign policy priority is to resolve the institutional crisis opened by the French and Dutch ‘no’ votes…

After half a century of European construction, we are united enough for none of our members to be able to act independently, but not enough to be able to act together. Europe has a common space but no common power…

The friendship between Europe and the United States is vital for the world’s balance. The friendship between France and the United States is deep, sincere, I would even say indestructible.

But friendship means respect… it does not mean submission. I want a free France, I want a free Europe. I therefore ask our American friends to let us be free, free to be their friends.

In other words:

Meaningless soundbite platitude

Something needs to be done (but I don’t know what)

The EU’s lost its way (but I don’t know how to help it back on track)

I really like America, except for the bits I don’t (and yes, yes I have been watching Hugh Grant’s closing speech to Billy Bob Thornton’s American President in Love, Actually)

With another couple of months until the elections, will Sarkozy be able to keep up this superficially impressive sounding rhetoric that actually means precisely nothing? Can he continue to avoid committing to any definite policies when it comes to the EU?

Foreign policy has played a fairly major part in the election campaign so far – if Royal or Bayrou can hit on something that resonates with the voters, Sarkozy’s continued platitude-heavy prevarication could end up looking like indecisiveness rather than the cunning “all options are open and I just want to do the best for the country” approach he’s trying to present at the moment. He may be in the lead now, but anything could happen.

Ah – a tight election… It’s been such a long time since we had one of those in the UK that I’d almost forgotten what they were like.

Prodi and the EU’s “one size fits all” approach

Posted on by

After his little upset Italian PM Romano Prodi’s managed to get through the vote of no confidence (winning by five votes – which considering how close in numbers the two main coalitions are is actually not quite as tight as it sounds).

In fact, so orderly has been his reinstatement that some have even raised (entirely plausible) suspicions that the whole thing was a stage-managed scam to get him more secure.

After all, having just passed a vote of no confidence he has effectively just been reassured that he has support for his proposed electoral reforms (largely designed to scrap the horrendous mess Berlusconi made of the Italian electoral system), as well as for his efforts to lead the way in reforming the EU.

But still, this is Italy. Nothing is certain in its politics, and it’s also entirely possible to take a very different view. And in any case, even if Prodi did plan this all from the start, the likelihood of him staying in office more than another year or so is pretty much minute based on the past terms of Italian PMs (not to mention the on-going contentious issues of gay rights and Afghanistan).

Which all means that if this former European Commission President wants to use his time as Prime Minister to help the EU get a version of the constitution through, he needs to move fast, because various other leading EU types are beginning to realise even more precisely why they wanted to scrap the current ways of working. It was bad enough every member state having a veto when there were just 15 – but now there are 27 it’s well nigh impossible to get anything significant through.

As such, the likes of Spain, Germany and Italy can moan as much as they like about other EU member states not being as enthusiastic as they are about the constitution, but it’s never going to get them anywhere, because it’s pretty damned obvious that several countries are less than keen on the existing text, and so are going to carry on vetoing it.

Of course, quite why Germany, Spain, Italy and the other countries that have ratified the constitution should be prevented from pressing ahead just because some other countries aren’t happy is one of the idiocies of the way the EU is still being maintained as a “one size fits all” organisation.

What the constitutional enthusiasts SHOULD be doing, if they had any sense, was proposing an alternative text that allows some countries to sign up to having an EU president, foreign minister and qualified majority voting (the key contentious issues in the current text), and others to opt out of those parts they see fit. With a bit of cunning, the details could be worked out to ensure this system works well for all – just as the Eurozone countries can operate alongside the non-Eurozone countries, all under the EU umbrella.

It’s not going to be easy, that’s for sure – but until something like this is adopted, any attempts to ratify the existing constitutional treaty are not only doomed to failure, but are also doomed to increase intra-EU resentments and tensions – perhaps to an unsustainable level. After all, why should Britain or the Czech Republic prevent Spain or Luxembourg from moving towards closer political integration? And why should Spain or Luxembourg force Britain or the Czech Republic to integrate more than they are comfortable with?

Back to the drawing board, Romano. The time you’ve got left as Prime Minister isn’t going to be long enough to get the existing treaty ratified. It is, however, long enough for you to come up with a workable proposal for a multi-tier EU that could – just could – keep everyone happy.

It would take a well-known EU-enthusiast like Prodi to get his fellow EU types to accept what would be, for the more fervent amongst them, a long-overdue public acknowledgement that the dream/bogeyman of an “ever-closer union” – the federal, political Europe that europhiles adore and europhobes detest – was not a dream, but a pipedream. Not in their lifetimes, nor yours, nor mine, nor our grandchildren’s is that ever likely to happen – and it’s about time they realised that and started acting acordingly.

Blair and the EU constitution, part 2

Posted on by

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…

Blair and the EU constitution

Posted on by

As you may have noticed, I’ve spent a fair amount of this week highlighting the lack of British involvement in the ever-increasing moves towards reviving / revising the EU constitution. Now, via Iain Dale, it seems that the (anti-EU Rupert Murdoch tabloid) News of the World reckon they’ve uncovered what Blair’s up to:

the Prime Minister intends to rubber-stamp the European Constitution without consulting his likely successor Chancellor Gordon Brown — not to mention British voters.

Mr Blair has PERSONALLY pushed forward plans for a permanent EU President and Foreign Minister as one of his last acts before he stands down as premier.

He will travel to Berlin on March 25 to sign the 50-page agreement, Declaration on the Future of Europe.

Far from a simple “declaration”, this is a binding treaty which embodies “basic laws” for 490 million people in 27 countries.

Quite how the News of the World think they know what the final text is going to contain when it hasn’t been written yet is anyone’s guess. But, of course, although the major proposals the NOTW mentions are hardly new (an EU President, EU Foreign Minister, EU Defence Minister and greater powers for the – democratically-elected, lest we forget – European Parliament), they all, the paper claims, add up to a move towards the eurosceptic bogeyman of “federalism”.

Is this take justified? It’s impossible to say.

The News of the World asserts (with little in the way of evidence) that this Declaration on the Future of Europe will be legally binding, forcing all signatories into handing over ever more power to Brussels. But considering that this will hardly be the first such declaration (similar ones were issued in 2001 following the practically useless Treaty of Nice and the Laeken EU Council), and that its predecessors were – as the term “declaration” implies – simply declarations of the intention to find a way to move much-needed EU reforms forward, with little in the way of specifics about what those reforms might be, it seems highly unlikely that any such document is going to contain any specific promises to implement new ways of working. Instead, the likelihood is that the latest version is going to be much like its predecessors – nothing more than a public acknowledgement that the current EU system is increasingly unfit for purpose.

And in any case, as my recent run-downs of the ongoing debates about the constitution have surely made clear, there is no consensus amongst our European cousins on precisely what is the best way forward in any case. Even if Blair does sign the thing (seemingly without the promised referendum), there’s little chance that all the other nine member states yet to ratify the original constitutional treaty will do likewise.

It’s far too risky for any of the French presidential candidates to commit to at the moment, the Netherlands are likewise unlikely to ignore their referendum (especially with the Dutch government so precarious), and it’s highly likely that Denmark, the Czech Republic and Poland are also going to have a few things to say about any attempt at straight revival of the old constitution. Yet without unanimity amongst all 27 EU member states, there is no way that the constitution can come into force.

Even if Blair does sign the thing – against the wishes of a decent chunk of his cabinet, not to mention the country – and even if we take the News of the World’s word that this new declaration is somehow legally binding and going to come into force as soon as it’s signed (as they strongly suggest), there’s a very strong probability that at least one other EU country will refuse to, and the whole thing will be scuppered.

Either way, I’m intrigued to know where the News of the World got all this information from – because not only is the declaration yet to be finalised, making their claims about its content speculative at best, but also they make the bizarre claim that “Downing Street played a major role in the latest negotiations”. Because of that there is precisely no evidence whatsoever – in fact, precisely the opposite. Why else would the more enthusiastically pro-EU types across the Channel have been complaining so much about Britain’s lack of involvement over the last year or more?

A weekend EU constitution roundup

Posted on by

It’s all kicking off. Again… Ever more people are starting to come to the opinion that 2007 is going to be one of the EU’s most important years. I’m not one of them…

One of the driving forces increasingly seems to be Italy’s Romano Prodi, former President of the European Commission – who’s currently wating to see if he’s had a stay of execution following his resignation on Wednesday, with Italy’s President today asking him to stay in the job (as long as he can pass a vote of no confidence…)

First up, just over a week ago, nine member states (Italy along with Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Spain, France, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg) made a joint declaration calling for a “social Europe”, alongside any revival of the constitution. No one knows precisely what a “social Europe” might be, but they all seem to think it sounds nice.

Then, back on Tuesday, Italy and Spain made a joint statement: “We are going to unite the efforts of two countries that have ratified the EU constitutional treaty with Germany so that this semester will be a time in which we move from thought to action, from stagnancy to initiatives”. We’ve heard all this before, of course, but they actually seem to have got a bit of momentum up this time…

At the same time, the two countries voiced their fears that Tony Blair’s exit from British politics could screw the whole project. Because – despite the fact he’s done little to prove it in recent years – Blair is the most europhile Prime Minister Britain’s had since Heath, and whoever follows him in to Number 10, it’s highly unlikely that they’re going to be as willing as Blair has been to bend over backwards to try and get the EU to work (remember Blair’s efforts to reform the Common Agricultural Policy by offering to give up Britain’s rebate? Brave stuff…)

Also on Tuesday, EU Regional Aid Commissioner Danuta Hubner (no, I’d never heard of her either) came out with a schoolmistressy warning to all 27 member states about how the EU could collapse without progress on the constituion. Possibly true – but if that’s the case, you’d think that they’d all realise that now’s the time for compromise to ensure that the most sceptical member states are happy, rather than to push ahead with the existing text in the vague hope that a sizable chunk of the continent (including Britain, France and the Netherlands) will change their minds about the thing. Ho hum…

Then, despite the surprise news about Prodi on Wednesday, on Thursday the Czech Republic (which cancelled its referendum after the Franch and Dutch votes) decided to push ahead ahyway, calling for an easier to understand version of the existing constitutional treaty. A kind of “EU Constitution for Dummies”, if you will – another lovely demonstration of one strand of thought amongst the EU’s political elites: French and Dutch voters rejected the thing because they were too stupid to understand it. (Which may be true, to be fair – the thing was so long and convoluted I doubt even the people who drafted the thing fully understood it all…) What the Czechs don’t seem to be doing (and I really wish someone would) is proposing the sensible alternative: a constitution based on that of the United States. Short, sweet and to the point.

Naturally enough, though, it can’t all run smoothly – especially with France in the middle of an election campaign that’s looking increasingly tight and unpredictable, with candidates desperate for any stick to beat their opponents with. As such, early in the week a spat about sovereignty emerged – swiftly followed by presidential hopeful Nicholas Sarkozy calling for an abridged version of the constitution. Just as some have argued that the French people used the constitutional referendum to express annoyance with their national leaders, rather than with the constitution itself, the presidential election could well see France’s next president commit to a course of action on the constitution purely to gain votes. Which is hardly ideal, but still. Such is democracy.

Next week this is all likely to continue – especially if Prodi survives and Italy gets back in the fight. This coming Wednesday ministers from Spain and Luxembourg are visiting the European Parliament’s constitutional affairs committee, discussing ways to get the remaining 9 member states (France, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland, Portugal and the UK) to ratify the existing treaty. Which simply isn’t going to happen.

Meanwhile, various people are proposing alternatives – from former Convention on the Future of Europe member Hubert Haenel, French Green MEP Gerard Onesta, Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema, Italian Minister of the Interior Giuliano Amato, former French Prime minister Laurent Fabius, and countless others.

Many of the suggestions aren’t up to much, failing the fundamental test of “would every single member state be happy with this?” But at least they acknowledge that the existing text is no longer an option.

Even so, somewhere out there is a workable solution. The only question is, will the people with the power to adopt it ever be able to find the thing? There’s lot of activity at the moment, with various countries running around looking for ways to press ahead and convince others of their position. But with Britain currently stuck ostrich-like, seemingly paying no attention whatsoever to the constitutional debate on the continent, with France embroiled in tight elections for at least another couple of months, and Italy’s pro-EU Prime Minister currently blanacing on a knife edge, the chances of any meaningful agreement during the German EU Presidency of the first half of this year looks increasingly unlikely, no matter how hard some of the more enthusiastic countries to have adopted the existing text might be trying to get one. the whole thing is looking increasingly unlikely to end.

If we can’t even agree on something as fleeting and trivial as how best to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, how the hell are we going to be able to agree on something as complex and important as the blueprint for the running of the EU for the next 50 years? So, 2007 as one of the EU’s most important years? Not for any positive reasons. It could well be the year when the differences become so fundamental that the EU splits into two tiers – but even that is (sadly) unlikely. By far the most probable outcome of all these little manourverings to push forward with reform is failure and further stagnation. I can’t see any room for hope as long as Britain remains on the sidelines – and especially while the EU’s single biggest problem, the Common Agricultural Policy and its impact on the budget, remains undiscussed.