Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Future of Europe Convention/Giscard Meeting and Euro.
Future of Europe Convention/Giscard Meeting
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that Valery Giscard D’Estaing would be meeting the Prime Minister in Downing Street this evening. He said it was important to put the meeting into context. As illustrated by some of the hype in recent days, it was easy to lose sight of why the EU was going through the process it was going through. As M. Giscard had said on Friday, this was not part of some plot to establish a European super-state. Rather, it was about completing the vision which had become possible when the first brick had come out of the Berlin Wall - a vision of European countries working together as free independent nations who pooled sovereignty where it made sense to deal with issues such as the environment, transport and crime, at the same time as maintaining their national independence and freedom of action where it was important - on matters of taxation and foreign and defence policy. Far from being a plot to rob these nations of their independence, the Convention was what they had been striving for. It was the chance to be part of a modernised EU - a Union that allowed twenty-five nations to work together while preserving their identities. What was true for them was equally true for this country. Arrangements that had been designed for a community of six member states would simply not work for a community of twenty-five. Hence the need to modernise. Hence the Future of Europe debate and the way it had been approached: a broad, open debate through the Convention followed by an Inter-governmental Conference (IGC) in which the UK would be able to veto anything we did not like - and it would be in our interest to do so. For example, it would strengthen the EU’s ability to fight terrorism and crime with the new member states taking part in bodies such as Europol. It was also estimated that our GDP would be boosted by £1.75bn. This was because enlargement would bring with it a Single Market of 500 million customers, which was estimated to result in an extra 300,000 jobs Europe wide. There were many things in M. Giscard’s current draft which we liked, such as the suggestion to elect an elected Chair if the European Council, reforming the presidency system through the idea of ‘team presidencies’, QMV on issues such as asylum which would allow us to achieve the level of co-ordination needed to tackle such an issue, and improved co-ordination on foreign policy. The PMOS said it was important to be clear about where we were in the process. We were currently looking at a draft document which would eventually become a final draft. After that, discussions would move to the IGC. In the IGC, we would be able to veto anything that was not in our national interest. Equally, we would be able to push for QMV, for example, on issues such as asylum, which clearly were in our interest.
In answer to questions, the PMOS said that if the EU was going to be expanded to twenty-five member states, we obviously needed an institution that worked effectively. That meant modernising the institutional framework - which was precisely what the Future of Europe Convention was doing and what the forthcoming IGC was going to do. If we wanted to receive the full benefits of an enlarged market, it went without saying that the EU had to operate efficiently and effectively. Put to him that Peter Hain had suggested that this was simply a matter of pulling together existing treaties, the PMOS said that pulling together existing treaties would indeed have a real effect on the ground. This was all about modernising the EU - and it was important for people to recognise that such a thing could be done as part of a considered, open, transparent debate. The PMOS drew journalists’ attention to an extract from a speech given by the Foreign Secretary in Brussels today in which he had said, "It’s absurd to suggest, as some in Britain and elsewhere do, that the Europe of twenty-five will be a tyranny, when this wider Europe has been built on tyranny’s defeat. The British public deserves a higher level of debate than this and we will do all we can to make sure that the debates and arguments ahead will respect the public’s intelligence". This was exactly what the Convention had been designed to do. The end result of this process would be the IGC in which we would have our say.
Asked to confirm that there was absolutely no connection between the UK’s support for EU enlargement and a need to have this particular set of proposals, so that Britain’s red line on tax, for example, did not mean we opposed enlargement, the PMOS said that people had to avoid false choices. It was important to recognise where the grain of European thinking of twenty-five countries - not just one or two - lay. It was going in the direction that we favoured. As Valery Giscard D’Estaing himself had said on Friday, what the majority wanted was not a European super-state but independent states working together. Simply because one or two countries might adopt a federalist position did not mean that we had to follow that path.
Asked if the Prime Minister regarded the process as vital to Britain’s future, the PMOS said of course. That was why it was important for it to reflect what we considered to be in this country’s interest. We wanted to be part of a wider Europe which brought together twenty-five countries, which in turn would open up a market of 500 million customers. We also recognised that if the EU was going to work, it could not remain as it was. We believed that the six-month rotating presidency simply had to change because it would not provide the coherence, consistency and effectiveness which it had been able to do with a community comprising six member states. As it currently stood, the EU could not bear the weight of twenty-five. Hence the need for change and the need to modernise - which was precisely what this process was all about. Asked to explain why the structures which operated for the current fifteen members states could not cope with another ten members, the PMOS said that the structures were under severe strain, even with fifteen.
Asked whether the constitutional treaty would have constitutional issues for the UK, the PMOS said that if he was being asked about holding a referendum, it was important to recognise that the changes were in line with other treaties which had been ratified by Parliament - for example, the Single European Act in 1986; the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 which had established the CFSP and the JHA; the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 which had updated the Maastricht Treaty; and the Treaty of Nice which had set out the basic institutional arrangements for EU post-enlargement. The product of the IGC would not be a constitution for a common country. The outcome would not affect the UK in the way that joining the EEC had back in the 1970s, or that joining the Euro would have in the future. The constitutional treaty, like every other EU treaty, should therefore be ratified by Parliament following the full extensive line-by-line discussion with its provisions. Put to him that the difference between the four Treaties above and this treaty was the fact that the final product would effectively be a written constitution - something which the UK did not possess, the PMOS said that the idea of ‘legal personality’ for the EU was not new. The European community already had ‘legal personality’ which represented member states on issues such as international trade negotiations. The Convention proposed to give the EU a single legal personality when the EU treaties were merged. In that sense, therefore, it would not have the kind of constitutional implications which joining the European community in the first place had had. Put to him that people had been told in 1973 that joining the European Community would not change anything - but it quite clearly had, the PMOS said he would disagree with the premise of the question. No one would deny that joining the European Community 1973 had not been a fundamental change. Self-evidently it had.
Questioned about the proposals we approved of, the PMOS identified ideas such as an elected head of the European Council, but said that these were ideas which were still evolving. The Prime Minister’s meeting this evening with Valery Giscard D’Estaing would be the third time the two would have discussed these issues during the Convention period. No final decision was being taken tonight. The discussion process was continuing.
Asked about the red lines, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had made the UK’s position on taxation and foreign and defence policy absolutely clear. We opposed anything that would impinge on our right of veto in those areas. Asked about asylum policy, the PMOS said that we were in favour of co-operation on asylum because co-operation was the key to tackling a problem which, by its very nature, involved more than one country. Asked if we would support QMV on asylum, the PMOS said that we wanted a result which would allow Europe as whole to tackle the problem. Put to him that co-operation on asylum had ‘hardly been Europe’s shining achievement in the last decade’ on the grounds that the Dublin Convention had been a ‘farce’, the PMOS said no one was pretending that co-operation had been as good as it could have been in the past . That was precisely why it needed to be better in the future. As Thursday’s asylum statistics would no doubt show, the increased co-operation between ourselves and the French was producing results. However, it was clear that that needed to be spread Europe wide.
Asked if the Prime Minister was surprised that people were beginning to express some unease about the proposals being put forward, the PMOS said that people would only become concerned if they lost their perspective about where the key areas were and where it made common sense to co-operate. The crucial point was common sense, and it was that - not hype or scare-mongering - which should guide our decision-making and our commentary on it. It was common-sense to co-ordinate policies on asylum. It was equally common sense for independent countries to retain control over their taxation, foreign and defence policies. The countries which were joining were not doing so because they wanted to give up their national independence. On the contrary. They were joining because wanted to be part of a modernised and prosperous EU.
Questioned about Michael Meacher’s comments this morning, the PMOS said that the environment was a prime example where co-operation between member states made sense. Environmental problem did not begin or end at our shores. They were European-wide.
In answer to questions about the ratification of the treaty, the PMOS repeated that this would be the role of Parliament. Were we to do otherwise, no doubt people would demand to know why we were putting Parliament out of a job. Put to him that referendums had been used to set up the devolved assemblies, the PMOS said that the decision to set up the devolved assemblies had been important decisions for those particular localities.
Questioned as to whether the UK would have a veto on the final document or whether we would be given the chance to veto individual elements of it, the PMOS said that we wanted to accept the document as a whole. Asked if he was implying that we could veto the entire constitution because it breached our red lines, the PMOS said that the draft constitutional treaty which M. Giscard would present in June would be the starting point for the IGC which was due to begin in the autumn. The final constitutional treaty had to be agreed unanimously. Therefore, each member state had a veto over the entirety of the treaty. Asked if he was saying that the idea we could veto individual elements of the treaty was simply wrong and that we would have to veto the entire treaty if we disagreed with any aspect of it, the PMOS suggested that a false analysis lay behind the question, namely the idea that a majority of countries wanted to go into territory where we did not want to venture. That was simply not the case. Yes, some might - but not the majority. In the same way, some might want to hold a referendum - but not a majority. There seemed to be a mindset which still thought of Europe as a community with a membership of six and where one or two countries were able to dominate. That was completely wrong. We were talking about a Europe of twenty-five - and the quicker people understood that, the better.
Euro
Asked which Ministers would be meeting the Prime Minister and Chancellor today to discuss the Euro, the PMOS said that he had no intention of giving a running commentary of who was coming in or out of Downing Street today or any other day. The discussions should be allowed to continue as they were. Questioned about this week’s Cabinet, the PMOS said there would be an initial ’second reading’ discussion at this week’s meeting. The Special Cabinet on 5 or 6 June would include a wider discussion on Europe.
Asked what effect the Prime Minister believed the events of the next few weeks would have on his pro-European credentials given the fact that he would probably say ‘no’ to Valery Giscard D’Estaing, ‘no’ to the Euro and ‘no’ to a European army, the PMOS said he could not remember a question with more false assumptions built into it. The Prime Minister had no need to apologise to anyone for his pro-European credentials. They did not change and would not change as a result of anything that might happen over the next two or three weeks.
delicious
digg
facebook
