Minister for Europe webchat

25 October 2007

Jim Murphy, Minister for Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, spent over an hour this afternoon answering questions on EU Treaty, Afghanistan, Turkey, Croatia, Kosovo, Cyprus, Israel, Morocco, NATO and Burma.

Jim's portfolio includes responsibility for the UK's relations with each European nation as well as with the European Union, Russia, Central Asia, South Caucasus, Balkans, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova and with NATO. He is also involved in issues such as the EU treaty and the UK's "red lines", Turkey's application for admission into the EU and EU sanctions against Burma.

Read the transcript:

Moderator says: Jim Murphy, Minister for Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will be answering your questions on Europe on 25 October at 16:45 BST.

Moderator says: Welcome to today's webchat with Europe Minister Jim Murphy. There will be a short delay, so please bear with us.

joseph cairns: Hello
I have written to the P.M asking for copies of the so called "red lines".I have not yet had an answer,could you explain what they are please?

Jim replies: Hello Joseph. Thanks for getting in touch. The UK Government secured a special deal in the European Treaty which means the Treaty will be different in the UK from that in all the other 26 countries of the EU. It is "red lines" which guarantee the unique nature of the UK deal for a full detailed analysis of the "red lines" visit europe.gov.uk

Helen Woodcock: I've just been watching Newsnight on BBC 2. I don't understand why there is debate on whether the so-called red lines in the European 'treaty' are secure. Surely they are or are not? From what the commissioner said, it would seem that one such red line may only be 'secure' for five years. If this is the case, and since the government has decided not to hold a referendum on this treaty on the grounds that it's not a constitution and our sovereignty will be protected by these red lines, I think the government should not sign unless the wording is changed in such a way as to make it absolutely clear that the areas covered by the red lines have been sufficiently protected. In my view, four out of five is not good enough. What do you think?

Jim replies: Hello Helen. The UK's "red lines" are legally watertight. Every Government in the European Union has agreed to the UK's "red lines". There is no time limit on these "red lines". It is the case however that much of this is very detailed. For example, the five year point that has been made applies to transitional measures in justice and home affairs in what previously was known as "Pillar 3" measures. The main thing is that the UK will pick and choose whether to join in with the rest of Europe or not. The choice is for us and us alone to make. I know that some of this like all European Treaties is quite technical. That is why we will be shortly be publishing on line a plain English outline of the Treaty. This will be available on europe.gov.uk

Thom: Why is the loss of over 50 vetoes on EU policies a good thing for Britain?

Jim replies: Right now we need to get all 27 Governments of the European Union to agree unanimously to many measures before Europe can act. In the Treaty there are 50 moves where we move away from this and introduce "Qualified Majority Voting". This means that no one country can block a new proposal on their own. We have only agreed to these where it is in the UK's interest to do so. For example on intellectual property rights and energy policy. There is also a very good and important QMV on international aid which will mean that the EU can be more effective in getting money to those who need it most. It is also the case that many of the QMVs don't apply in the UK. 16 do not relate tot he UK at all or only affect us if we decide to opt into them. Of the remaining 34, 14 are simply procedural. That leaves 20 which are in our interest. Of course QMV is not new. It's use has been extended in each European Treaty.

Alexander Gordon: Dear Mr Murphy, I would like to know why this Government is not giving the people of this Country a Referendum on this New EU Treaty which we were PROMISED to us by this Government and now they are renaging on. I would think if this government wants to stay in power it would give the people the right to have a Referendum on this matter as we could be signing up to giving more power to Brussels and we don;t want that as we hsve given them a lot of our powers over the years.

Yours sincerely
Mr A D Gordon

Jim replies: We had proposed having a referendum on a European Constitution. France and The Netherlands had a referendum on the Constitution and both countries voted no. As a consequence Europe abandoned plans to have a Constitution and what we have now is a traditional amending Treaty like the Treaties of Amsterdam, Nice and Maastricht. We plan to take the same approach with this Treaty as Prime Ministers Blair, Major and Thatcher did with their respective European Treaties when they were Prime Minister which is to have detailed Parliamentary scrutiny. It is also worth noting that only Ireland of all 27 countries plans to have a referendum because of domestic constitutional reasons. There were 9 countries planning to have a referendum on the old Constitution but they have recognised that the Constitution approach has been abandoned. I don't think there'll be a European Constitution in my lifetime.

David Whorwood: When are the British people to given the oportuinity to vote in a reforendum on Britain's continued membership of the EC?

Jim replies: The UK has only ever held one national referendum and that was in 1975 to confirm membership of the European Community. The Government doesn't have any plans to hold a referendum on continuing EU membership.

Irene Mary Richards: Problem with the latest debate re Europe and the constitution, demands for a referendum, etc. is that few of the general public have a clue what it is really all about. How do you enlighten people like myself to an intelligent understanding of the issues involved?

Jim replies: Thanks for your question Irene. One of the fascinating aspects of this debate so far is how those who oppose the Treaty argue about things that aren't actually in it to justify their opposition to it. If half the things I had read about this Treaty were true then I would understand some of the concerns being expressed. But the idea that for example we are going to lose a seat at the United Nations or lose the ability to have our own foreign and defence policy are just rubbish. As I mentioned to Helen in an earlier response we will shortly be publishing a plain English explanation of this Treaty which will hopefully add to factual understanding of what is being proposed.

Scarlett Graham: Minister, why does the Government not respond to the right-wing media, which has been crudely misrepresenting the EU and its effects, by launching a consultation on the benefits and costs, both in economic and cultural terms, of European membership and further integration, and how European membership affects the British economy, British businesses, and individuals?

Jim replies: Thanks for your question Scarlett. It is undoubted that our membership of the European Union is on any objective basis is in the UK's national interest. It is great for our economy and it is important if we are to succeed in tackling climate change. I also feel strongly that Britain can achieve much more on the international stage in our relations with for example Russia, the Middle East and Burma if we work with others in Europe. If the 27 serving governments of the EU agree with one another it makes sense for us to cooperate but if we don't agree we can do our own thing. In response to your specific point I am always trying to find new ways to tell a positive story about Europe, but ultimately people's experiences are a much more powerful way of influencing opinion. It's great that we are able to work, study or travel throughout Europe. It's fantastic that we increasingly share fashion, food and culture. And I think that most people believe that it would be wrong if the UK were to turn its back on Europe.

Adorna Wong: Dear Minister,

Do you think Turkey will finally be admitted to the EU ?

Jim replies: Yes. This isn't something that will happen overnight, but I do believe that a modern reformed Turkey should be a full member of the European Union. The UK will continue to support that. I had lunch with the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan earlier this week and we had the opportunity to talk about not just EU membership but also the issues of terrorism on Turkey's border. Our Prime Minister also met the Turkish Prime Minister and signed a Strategic Partnership which is an important development in our relations.

alexander: The Strategic Partnership Agreement signed between Turkey and the UK on Tuesday contains references to Britain helping upgrade the 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus', which the UN has declared an illegal secessionist entity. Why has Britain chosen to ignore UN resolutions and its responsibilities to Cyprus under the 1960 Treaty of Establishment and give succour to those who support the island's partition.

Thank You.
Alexander Mavros

Jim replies: Thanks for your post Alexander about the Strategic Partnership Agreement with Turkey which I just commented on in the post to Adorna. Our policy on the non-recognition of the so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is unchanged. We do not and will not recognise a separate entity in the Northern part of Cyprus. Nor does anything in the document reflect any attempt to upgrade the status of the North or promote partition. I hope that reassures you.

Tim: As Turkey is so strategically important to NATO, what is holding the EU back in accepting its entry?

Jim replies: Thanks Tim. The UK's experience of trying to join the European Community in the 1970s shows how difficult and prolonged process this can sometimes be. However the UK believes that Turkey should be in the EU if it makes the important reforms that the European Union has set Turkey. There are some Governments who have not traditionally been as supportive as the UK but all European Union countries have made it clear that Turkey is a candidate for EU membership. If Turkey continues with the pace of reform then I think that the likelihood of its membership is greatly enhanced. Incidentally, Croatia is also in the process of seeking membership and the UK also supports that application.

Ron: Hi Minister - Turkey's possible accession to the EU should clear the way for a successful application from Israel, would you agree?

Jim replies: Ron that's a fascinating question that others have asked me. Israel hasn't applied to join the EU and has no intention of doing so and therefore the situation doesn't arise. But the nearest precedent was Morocco which did apply but was refused on the basis that it was in Africa not Europe. However the EU does have very good agreements with countries that border the EU in both the East and the South and that does include both Morocco and Israel.

Zaki Cooper: With the UK having benefited so much from enlargement to eastern Europe, in what ways does he think we could benefit from the accession of countries like Turkey and Croatia into the EU?

Jim replies: That's a question that lends itself to a whole afternoon's conversation, but briefly we think that Turkey joining would be a very strong way of showing that nations with different cultural and religious heritages can be in the European family. One can only speculate as to the impact of the EU refusing Turkish membership in the future, having already signalled agreement in principle. It would be bad for Europe and undermine all the progress that Turkey has made and is determined to continue making. It would also be the wrong signal to a secular, but majority Muslim state that they were not welcome. That would be wrong. More generally the EU benefits from being the biggest single market in the world, which with Turkish and Croatian membership would make it larger and stronger. It would also bind Croatia and Turkey into a coordinated efforts on climate change, terrorism and much else. All of that is undoubted in the UK's interest.

Marta: What do you think of Kosovo making independent? America supports independent but Serbia and Russia are against and will create international problems. Maybe Serbia change idea about joining EU. What do you think?

Jim replies: Kosovo should be independent. The former President of Finland, Mr Ahtisaari produced a detailed plan for independence which outlines how the international community could supervise independence and also ensure that there is respect for the Serbian minority in Kosovo. The UK's preferred route to independence for Kosovo is through the United Nations but we, like most of the rest of Europe, believe that this should not be blocked by Russia. The US has made its position clear but ultimately it is a bigger test for Europe than it is for the US and that it must surely be for us to show effective leadership. An important date in this process is 10 December when another report will go to the United Nations. After that the international community will shortly be approaching the point of finally making a decision.

Maksim Semenov: Dear Jim Murphy,
How do you characteraze today's relationship between Russia and the UK after Litvineneko's murder in London? Do you agree with opinions of different exrerts that our relationship has become worse in joint projects, including oil, gas, trade, and culture between our two countries?
Thank you

Jim replies: The UK's relationship with Russia is of crucial importance. Russia is clearly a nation with significant diplomatic influence and increasing economic confidence. Russia has an important role in many of our international priorities including energy security and climate change. Our relationship with Russia is not always a meeting of minds and where we do have concerns, for example on human rights, we raise them frankly with the Russian authorities. Many of us had high expectations of continuing democratic reform in Russia and are frustrated that the "democratic space" such as the operation of non-government organisations has shrunk recently. On the specific point about the murder of Mr Litvinenko we continue to seek the extradition of Mr Lugavoy.

paul: NATO wants more troops for Afghanistan but countries won't send them. How are we supposed to succeed there? How can NATO maintain credibility when it is so dependent on bickering, self-interested members?

Jim replies: Thanks for your post Paul. Afghanistan is of crucial importance to NATO and it is right that other countries should contribute to Afghanistan's security. I recently spoke to Dutch Government Ministers and I know how much they share our concerns. There was a positive announcement by 9 countries yesterday on this and you can find the details on the NATO website.

alex waite: What can the EU do about Burma? Are they doing enough?

Jim replies: Last week I was in Luxembourg at a meeting of all European Foreign Ministers where we discussed many issues including support for Iraq, the situation in Iran and what more could be done about Burma. We were pleased that our efforts along with those of France, Denmark and others were unanimously supported. We agreed, amongst other things, to look at further economic sanctions against the regime. This is an important part of a wider effort to influence the Junta away from their current destructive path. The UK will continue to raise this issue at every opportunity in Europe and at the United Nations because the situation in Burma is a crisis which the world cannot ignore. Just because the demonstrations are no longer on our televisions doesn't mean that the people's aspirations should be far from our minds. We will keep up the effort.

Rosie: I'm 16 years old and my parents have been British residents in France since 1999. They're about to lose their health care rights even though they have an income and contribute to the social security system. What will the British government do to protect my rights in Europe?

Jim replies: Thanks for your post Rosie. A number of people have been in touch about this today and on my Foreign Office blog. We have had further contact with the French Ministry of Health and we await clarification from them on this. We have raised our concerns with the French Government regarding the impact on British citizens living in France. In particular we have asked if any change is to take place that it does not apply retrospectively. We will continue to raise this.

Jim says:
Thanks for all your posts. I'm sorry I wasn't able to respond to them all but in an hour we got through the EU Treaty, Afghanistan, Turkey, Croatia, Kosovo, Cyprus, Israel, Morocco, NATO and Burma. If you want to continue the conversation about these or any other issues visit my blog. For further details about any European issues visit europe.gov.uk.

Thanks,

Jim

Moderator says: 

That's all we have time for today.

We have the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Ed Balls, here at 15:00 on 1 November 2007. Submit a question to Ed Balls