16 April 2007
Tony Blair and Jan-Peter Balkenende held talks in Downing Street today. The two leaders enjoyed "useful and important discussions", Mr Blair said, with the main focus being the debate over the European constitutional treaty.
Parts of this transcript may have been edited
Read the transcript
Tony Blair:
Good Afternoon everyone. Could I welcome very much the Dutch Prime Minister here to Downing Street and to say that we have had useful and important discussions. The main topic for our discussion has been the debate over the European Constitutional Treaty. I think the Dutch and the UK positions are very close indeed on this. I want to endorse and agree with what the Dutch Prime Minister said in Berlin a few weeks ago when he said he thought it was important that we dealt with the key elements of this issue in the June European Council. Both of us have a great admiration and regard for the German Presidency and we will support the German Presidency in their desire to get agreement on this issue.
And I again very much agree with the Dutch position on this which is I think in the words of the paper that was presented to the Dutch parliament that we should go for an amending treaty, but not a treaty with the characteristics of a constitution, and that is I think an important position and it is one that we would endorse. So obviously there was a considerable amount of discussion on that issue.
I think however, secondly of course we talked about the joint initiative that we have taken in respect of climate change and the importance of the March European Council which has really given a whole new framework for European energy and environmental policy, and I would like to pay tribute to the leadership that the Dutch Prime Minister has shown on this issue consistently over a period of time and we have enjoyed very much working together with our Dutch colleagues on this issue.
And then of course we were able to touch on the different parts of the world, not least Afghanistan where our forces work together and where again I would pay tribute not only to our own Armed Forces but also to the work that the Dutch Armed Forces do there.
So I think the relationship between our two countries as you know is a very close one, we share a lot of the same instincts and feelings and I am very pleased that today we have managed to make so much common progress on what is obviously one of the very difficult issues.
Jan Peter, over to you.
Mr Balkenende:
Thank you very much for your hospitality. It is true we have an excellent bilateral relationship during the meetings of the European Council, we are working close together and today we have taken the opportunity to have an intensive discussion about the future of the European treaties. And it is true, if you have a European Union of 27 members that is different compared with the EU of 15 members, so we have to change things. But the question is, the fundamental question is what type of solution do we need at the moment?
It is our conviction that we should work with the idea of having an amending treaty. Some weeks ago when I went to Berlin to have a meeting with Angela Merkel then I said it is important to have what I mentioned in the German language, an andrusfradrag (phon) and that is an amending treaty, so a change to current treaties and we think that the best, as the Prime Minister Blair already said, it shouldn’t have the characteristic of a constitution. Of course you can take benefit of the good elements of the constitutional treaty, but if we are going to conclusion in June it is important to say we will work in the direction of an amending treaty.
And there are of course several important elements. By example let’s work on the clear position between the responsibility of Brussels and the national parliaments. Another issue is how can we strengthen the role of national parliaments. Another issue, what shall we do with the rules for enlargement, can they be incorporated in the new treaty? All these elements will be very relevant and it is true we will support the German Presidency to find a solution because it is true we have a situation in Europe that 18 member states ratified, 2 said No and others are still busy with thinking about it, and we have to find a solution together. And therefore it is important that we really make progress in June when we have the meeting of the European Council and I really hope that we can get a clear road map and with the ideas as we have both discussed today, having an amending treaty.
The second point we discussed was the issue of climate change and energy. Last year we have taken an initiative, we have written a letter together to the European Council and we were very happy with the results of the discussion that we had when we had the European Council meeting in March. Also this point will be on the agenda when there is the G8 meeting, but also tomorrow within the framework of the United Nations. It is important that we speed up the developments and we are working to realise the criteria. It is not easy but it is important that we take concrete steps. And it says also something about what Europe can mean to people in the near future.
We have had a good meeting, a good working lunch and of course we will have contact with the German Presidency and other countries to find the solution because it is necessary that we are taking the right steps when we have the Council meeting in June.
Question:
Prime Minister, first of all to you. Des Browne, can you tell us today how much confidence you have in him as Defence Secretary? And secondly a question to both Prime Ministers. You talk of an amending treaty, what exactly do you mean by that? Can you be as specific as you can about which bits of the treaty you would like to amend if possible. And secondly can you tell us what sense of support you have for this around the rest of the European Union at this stage ahead of the summit?
Tony Blair:
On the first point, I am afraid I have got nothing to add to what Tom said at the Lobby meeting, and as you know there is a statement coming up in the House within the next couple of hours.
In respect of the European Constitutional Treaty, I think what we are both saying, what the Dutch and the British are saying is that it is important we go back to the idea of a conventional treaty where the idea is to make Europe more effective, work more effectively because we now have a Europe of 27, and then 28 and so on countries rather than 15. We go back to that idea of a conventional amending treaty, rather than a treaty with the characteristics of a constitution. Now we then need to take forward the discussion with our colleagues as to what that means, but I think most people are familiar with the areas where there was clearly the attribute or characteristic of a constitution rather than simply an amending treaty.
Question:
What would a new revised Amending Treaty consist of making it different from the Constitutional Treaty?
Tony Blair:
Well I think those are the discussions that we should have with our colleagues and with the German Presidency. But I think the important thing is that if we want to get this resolved then we have to understand that even though there are 18 of the countries that have ratified the constitutional treaty, there are other countries that really will have a difficulty with a constitutional treaty rather than a treaty say in the tradition of the treaty that we negotiated in Amsterdam some 10 years ago. I think the Dutch and the British positions are very close in this and I agree with what the Dutch Prime Minister is saying, and then at a later time we can start spelling out what that means.
Mr Balkenende:
Let me give an additional remark. You know when we had the campaign on the referendum in the Netherlands there was also a type of criticism, people talked about will Brussels be a super state. And the fact that people had these types of feelings made it also clear that the constitution was considered as something that did not belong to the hearts and minds of people. And if you talk in terms of having a amending treaty then you are in a tradition, and we are familiar with that. Of course you can take benefits of the right elements of the constitutional treaty, we can talk about institutional reform for example, but the presentation is important. And I think that we need something new because if you want to have a solution then the question now is how will that be possible, and it is our impression, our conviction that if you are working in such a form of having an amending treaty, it will be easier to find a solution together.
And I think also that this orientation can lead to support among those countries who already ratified. By example I had a meeting with Prime Minister Jansa from Slovenia, a country that already ratified, and he really liked the Dutch approach because he saw that this could lead to a solution of the problems as far as the constitution is concerned. And that is the reason why we say we have to speed up developments, you cannot deny that a Europe of 27 is the same as a Europe of 15, we have to change it but do it on this basis. And it makes things also a bit easier because if you do not have the characteristic of a constitution it is also relevant for that question, do we have a referendum or not, that is also part of it.
And then indeed you mentioned the content, well of course we will have the discussion on the road map in June, but of course as we have said some elements can be used of the constitutional treaty, I already made some additional remarks about that, the elements that could be incorporated, but we will talk about that in June. But the message now is let’s try to find together a solution and to the opinion of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and me it must be possible to do it in that way, and that is also our advice to the German Presidency, and we will support the German Presidency because they are doing a very good job.
Question:
Well you agree on a lot, but so do the people in both countries, a resounding No in Holland, a deeply rooted scepticism in this country about anything that comes from Brussels. Did this lunch produce anything that makes it possible to dance around that word, constitution or no constitution, and if so what is that new element so you can have a new sales pitch and what really defines the something new that you indicated?
Tony Blair:
Well I think the important thing actually is that it isn’t simply about the word, the constitution. I mean in other words it is not going to be enough simply to take the word constitutional out of the treaty. I like the way that the paper to the Dutch parliament put it, which is that it shouldn’t have the characteristics of the constitution, in other words, I mean I think people can identify very clearly the things that would give rise to a European super state that we do not want, or could give rise to misapprehensions that that is what the purpose is, and those things that are necessary in order to make Europe work more effectively.
And in addition to that I think that some of the things that the Dutch Prime Minister was talking about, for example a bigger role for national parliaments, again I think would help in that. But there is all the difference really in the world between a constitutional treaty that is an attempt to consolidate, to write all the rules of the European Union to give rise to a whole new set of legal principles, and an amending treaty within the tradition of existing European treaties that makes the rules of Europe work more effectively, which we need and which we accept we need for a Europe of 27 rather than 15. But it is not just about the presentation of this, I think that is clear from both of us. You have to take an in principle decision first of all that it is going to be an amending treaty rather than a constitutional one.
Question:
And how do you do that?
Mr Balkenende:
Well in the first place it is important that you say we need something else, something different compared with the constitution, and that is necessary to find a common solution and I hope that we can draw the common conclusions in June. And then if you are using the aspects of an amending treaty, that is really a new situation, it also gives a better guarantee to reach results. And you are familiar with our coalition agreement, … the letter that the Foreign Minister and Minister of European Affairs has written to the Dutch parliament, and it is very clear, we say it should be different compared with the constitution, and on that basis, not having a constitution but an amending treaty.
And then of course if the elements that are necessary for the changes because we need more democracy, we need more efficiency in Europe, and that is the reason why I said if you have 27 members it is not the same situation compared with a European Union of 15 member states, we have to be aware of the fact that we have to change things but on that basis it must be possible to reach a consensus. I really hope that will be also the attitude when we meet as European Council in June.
Question:
Can I ask both of you please, what would you say to those people who might say that this talk of an amended treaty sounds a bit like a stitch-up by the political elite of Europe to try and bring back something that has been rejected by voters when it has been put to them in a referendum in some cases? And secondly Mr Blair, on Des Browne your spokesman said this morning that he still has your full confidence. I wonder if for the benefit of those television viewers who weren’t at the No 10 briefing, or haven’t had the chance to read the website, whether you could share with us why you still have full confidence in Mr Browne.
Tony Blair:
The answer to the latter point is no, because he has already made the position clear. And I know what you want and I am afraid in this particular instance I am not going to play that game.
The first point you make, it is very, very important though that we understand clearly what we are talking about here. Europe has had a series of revisions and treaties revising its rules over a long period of time, indeed whilst I have been Prime Minister we have had two - Amsterdam and Nice. That is a completely conventional way of doing things. What we decided to do with the constitutional treaty is to do something completely different, to have a convention where we then draw up a constitution for the whole of Europe. The problem, as the Dutch Prime Minister has just been saying, is that people felt that this was therefore not something that they were … familiar with, the rules of an institution change, this was a whole new constitution for the club of Europe.
And what we are saying, and let me emphasise this because for obvious reasons we don’t want to start going through item by item at this stage because it is important we have discussions with our own colleagues, but what we are saying is that the characteristics of a constitution is what has to come out so that what you are left with is a genuine traditional rule-making treaty that allows Europe to work more effectively. Now that is something that has always happened in the European Union and therefore it is not just a question of setting aside a name - the Constitutional Treaty - it is setting aside an approach and saying let us understand what is necessary to make Europe work more effectively but within the existing constitutional relationship between member states and the European Union. That is what we are trying to get to.
Now whether we can build sufficient support for that position is a matter that is open to debate, but I think the reality is that it is sensible for Europe to take these decisions, to get this issue taken off the dominating position it has had on the agenda, allow us to work Europe more effectively and then get on with many of the issues to do with the economy, and climate change, and immigration, and organised crime and all of those issues that worry our citizens.
So of course we are both anxious to work closely with the German Presidency, with whom we have both got good relationships and we have got a lot of faith in the German Chancellor in bringing this to a sensible conclusion, and we are not disrespecting the views of those that have ratified the Constitutional Treaty, but what we are trying to say is given the political reality, actually not just in our two countries but in Europe, it is sensible to go back to a more traditional way of doing this.
So the point that you are making quite rightly, which is you know how do people know that this is not just a presentational issue, no I think, and if you have studied the Dutch paper it is even clearer, which I can give you the English version of in case your Dutch isn’t quite up to it. But you will see that it is the substance that has to change and that you go back as I say to that more conventional way of doing things.
Mr Balkenende:
Yes but your question is very interesting because if you talk about the No in two countries, is it only a matter of France and the Netherlands? No, and that is not the point. I only stressed if you looked at what happened, it has to do with the depth that exists between Brussels and Strasbourg on the one hand, and people in Europe on the other hand. Suppose that there would have been a referendum in Belgium, or in Germany, would there be a guarantee that they would have voted Yes? I don’t think so. So if you talk about a situation now it is predominantly as far as I can see a matter of convincing the relevance of Europe to people, Europe must come back in the hearts and minds of people. And that is the reason why we said talk about the concrete results and concrete projects of the European Union.
I remember the British Prime Minister said that issue, when you had the Presidency, when you talk about the enlargement of the European Union you should be more strict in the criteria. We have realised that. What does Europe mean for issues like, as you said, climate change, energy, the war against terrorism by example? Europe is very relevant. But then it must be clear what is the relevance of Brussels, what are the powers and the responsibilities of Brussels, but what are also the responsibilities of national states? And therefore it is not a matter of let’s say simple description, we try to get a situation now that we understand the feeling of people in Europe in many countries and try to find the right solutions. That is the reason why we say do not talk about a constitution but use an amending treaty. And therefore I was very happy that the Presidency of the UK when they underlined so clearly that it is important to talk in terms of realising the concrete results in Europe.
Question:
Mr Balkenende, you said it might be easier in case the amending treaty was accepted by the European Union because then no referendums, you said it might be easier with regard to the referendum. Does that mean that no referendum at all will be required if this amending treaty actually materialises?
Mr Balkenende:
It is too early to give a concrete answer to that, but we know, let’s say in a country like Denmark, you know they have a constitutional tradition of organising referenda, so if you talk about a changing of the treaties, the issue of the obligation to organise a referendum is linked to content. Now that is just a clear indication that if you talk in terms of an amending treaty, as we have had in the past, is a different situation compared with a constitution with the characteristic of a real constitution. That is the point that Tony Blair, the Prime Minister already said very clearly, if we want to find a solution now the best way is to talk in terms of an amending treaty. What will happen within the member states, that is the responsibility of the member states themselves.
You are familiar with the Dutch situation, we have said we would like to have an amending treaty, then we will have an advice of our Council of State, and then it is up to the politics to make up their minds. So every country must take that decision, but to my opinion it is true you can say that having a constitution, as has been presented in the past, is a different situation compared with the fact that you would have an amending treaty. That is also the reason why we are stressing this point at this moment.