EU Council press conference 18 October 2007

18 October 2007

Gordon Brown has said he is confident of securing the UK's "red lines" in the EU Treaty to be discussed today in Lisbon.

Speaking to journalists as he arrived at the two day summit, the PM said that "detailed changes" in the text, drawn up over recent months, would "protect the the British national interest".

• PM confident "red lines" will be met

Read the transcript

Prime Minister:

Good Afternoon. Thank you very much for joining us. This summit comes at a critical juncture for the European Union. It is pretty clear to me that Europe must face up to a series of global challenges - the challenges of the changing world economy, the challenges of climate change and the environment, challenges affecting terrorism and security. The new reform treaty provides the framework within which the European Union can develop with its member states of 27, and over the last few months we have been engaged in difficult, detailed and very challenging negotiations about what form that amending treaty will take. And our intention and our objective throughout has been to ensure that the British national interest is protected in all respects. And as we have gone through these negotiations I have been determined that Britain will continue to decide in justice and home affairs and I believe that the detailed changes that are being made, with the opt-in for Britain in this area to protect the British national interest, on foreign affairs and security matters, it is important for us that Britain can decide, and that is why we have been determined that foreign policy remains intergovernmental and decisions are made by unanimity. On social security we have been determined that there is an emergency break and in some cases a veto so that decisions are made in the interests of Britain. And at the same time on the Charter of Rights we have secured a protocol which means that matters are not justiciable in British law.

So at every point we have been determined to protect the British national interest and to ensure that the interests of the British people are safeguarded. I believe that if we can succeed in the decisions that are to be made on the amending treaty then it will be possible for Europe to move on, to move on from inward-looking institutional change to deciding the role that it can play not just in the global economy, but in global society.

And that is why I have sent a letter round fellow colleagues saying that it is time for Europe to address in detail the issues of global economic change and I have put forward a number of proposals about how we can do that. And I have also suggested that on issues of climate change and security there are ways in which over the next few months Europe can not only make decisions that are beneficial to itself, but play a major part in global society. So I believe that after these debates this evening, and after the December Council, we can move from that inward-looking institutional discussion to dealing with the major challenges of jobs, prosperity, environmental security and of course security against terrorism generally, where a Europe working together can make a big impact not just in the interests of itself but in the interests of the world. And these are the ways in which I have pursued the discussions over the last few months and with my colleagues today.

Question:

Why do you believe that this new treaty is necessary and why with the red lines do you believe it is a good deal for Britain, and if it is such a good deal why not put it to the British people in a referendum?

Prime Minister:

Well John I am very glad that you have asked all three of these questions. First of all the reform treaty is necessary because we have now got a Europe of 27. Much of the institutional arrangements were for a Europe of 6, and then 15, and then a Europe that was gradually getting bigger, and the purpose of the reform treaty is really to accommodate institutional arrangements for a Europe of 27. Why are our red lines important and why have we achieved them? Our red lines are important because it is vital for us that in those areas of justice and home affairs, national security, social security and of course in the area of the Charter of Human Rights and Foreign Policy the British national interest is protected. And I believe as people look at the detailed negotiations we have been involved in, and at the increasing amount of progress that we have made over the last few months in the working parties and in the discussions about the institutional arrangements, people will see that we have secured our red lines and that the British national interest is protected. Why then do I say that this should now go to Parliament for very detailed discussion by Members of Parliament? It is no longer a constitutional treaty, it is an amending treaty. In the first words of the Brussels declaration, the constitutional concept it states is abandoned and in these circumstances I believe that justice, we might have had a discussion on the euro that would have led to a referendum because that was a fundamental change and justice, if it was the old treaty, there would have been a referendum because that was a fundamental change. Because we have a very different document with our protocol, with our opt-ins, with our emergency breaks, with all these protections for the British national interest there is no fundamental change and that is why I believe the proper way of discussing this, if we secure all our red lines this evening and in December, is parliamentary debate.

Question:

Prime Minister you are paying a heavy political price for refusing to give the referendum to the 75% or more of voters who say they want one, and they may say to themselves he must passionately want this treaty and believe it is good for us as voters. Why is this treaty good for anybody watching at home tonight and will you reassure them one step further that if Europe is moving on from institutional change there will be no more treaties, no more intergovernmental conferences while you are Prime Minister?

Prime Minister:

50% of our trade is with Europe. Anybody who is looking at the prosperity of the British economy knows that millions of jobs depend on us having successful trading arrangements with the rest of Europe and it makes sense therefore to have a European Union that is organised for the 27 members it has and that the institutional arrangements suit them, and that is the purpose of the reform treaty. I repeat, if there was a decision to be made on the euro then I was the first to argue that there should be a referendum, indeed I pressed my Cabinet colleagues and my shadow Cabinet colleagues before we were in government about the necessity of a referendum if we were to do something as significant as join, or recommend we join the euro. If it was the old constitutional treaty that was proposed before there would have been a referendum and the case for the referendum was that we were setting these changes out in a completely new constitutional document. But the constitutional concept was abandoned, that was the decision that was made in Brussels. The changes that have been made subsequently and at Brussels include all the protections for the British national interest that we have demanded. And I said before the Brussels summit that if we secured all these protections for the British national interest then in my view there was going to be no need for a referendum because we were not dealing with a constitutional treaty and we were not dealing with fundamental change.

As far as the future is concerned, I think you can see what my intention is. My intention is that we move on from this inward looking discussion which has dominated debate in Europe now for many years and move on from that to what are the major issues affecting the peoples of Europe and the people of our country, and that is better jobs, that is higher prosperity, that is better security against terrorism, that is action against climate change and for a more secure and sustainable environment, and these are the issues that I think people want us to address in future. So my focus will be away from institutional change and persuading my colleagues that it is not in our interest to have this inward-looking institutional debate over the next few years, it is in our interest to focus entirely on the questions of economic and social change that can benefit the British people.

Question:

Prime Minister a clear majority of people in the polls say they want a referendum. Do you acknowledge at least that it may do you some political damage if you categorically rule one out?

Prime Minister:

What I acknowledge is we are in the midst of a debate, we are in the midst of a debate that Britain has had over many, on many occasions about changes that are taking place in the European Union and whether they are acceptable to Britain. We had this debate over the Maastricht Treaty and that was 15 years ago. In fact the Conservative Government of the day, they said that the treaty changes were not significant enough to justify a referendum, and we supported them on that occasion. This treaty is of less institutional significance than the Maastricht Treaty as I think most people who look at it will recognise is the case. And that is why it is I think very strange that the Conservative Party when in Government opposed a referendum on Maastricht and are now demanding a referendum on this treaty. The fact is that when we look at all the detail, all the protections that are built in for the British national interest mean that Britain still decides on justice and home affairs, Britain decides on foreign and security policy, Britain decides on national security issues and all these major issues. Whether it is through the opt-in or whether it is through the protocol, the British national interest is protected.

Question:

Prime Minister you decided not to call an early election, even though you said you believed you could have won it. So you are not going to have a referendum but do you believe you could have won a referendum on this treaty?

Prime Minister:

Can I just put it this way again? If we were debating as big an issue as Britain's membership of the euro, and this was a major issue over the last 10 years in our country, then I would have been the first, indeed I was the first to say this is such an issue of great significance that the British people must vote in a referendum. And I think you will find that I was one of the first people in Britain to argue that there should be a referendum on that issue. If it was the previous constitutional treaty, as I repeat, I would have argued as we did that there should be a referendum. But this is an amending treaty where the constitutional concept has been abandoned, there is no other country in Europe, apart from the Irish Republic, which is constitutionally bound to have a referendum on every issue that is regarded as of importance to its country, there is no other country other than Ireland that is proposing a referendum on this amending treaty. And from a situation where I think 9 countries were about to have referendums, every country has agreed with us that this is an amending treaty and not a constitutional treaty. What is different about Britain is that we have also built in very strong safeguards. I mean I said before the Brussels summit that if we won all our safeguards, if the British national interest was protected then there was not fundamental change arising from this amending treaty and therefore the constitutional concept as they said had been abandoned and therefore the proper way of discussing this, and the best way of discussing this, is the debate that will take place on the floor of the House of Commons, in great detail as we know, about the measures in the treaty so that the protections that I believe we have negotiated are built in the legislation that we pass through the House of Commons.

Question:

On that point on ratification are you not worried that you might run into Maastricht-style stands yourself or do you think that extended debate on the floor of the House will actually cause more problems for the Conservatives? And just on the referendum point, is it your judgment that the polls and some of the newspapers have actually got it wrong, that the British public aren't actually that concerned about this treaty, it is low down in their priorities, it doesn't really worry them?

Prime Minister:

Well I think even newspapers that have argued for a referendum have published themselves polls which show that the top priorities for the British people are the health service, or education, or employment, or the state of the economy, or housing, or crime and these are issues that people have tended to raise as their priorities as the British people. Now this is what the debate is going to be about and there has got to be a debate, and rightly so, in detail in parliament on these issues and to some extent with the reports of committees in parliament this debate has already started. But I have found as we have gone through this debate that what people do not now raise with me in great detail is here is the fundamental constitutional significance of what is happening in justice and home affairs, people are prepared to accept that we have won an opt-in on this issue and in very great detail, because it is in very great detail, a process has been set out by which the British national interest is protected. And we go through each issue in every debate that we have, and then you look at foreign and security policy, which is still intergovernmental, has still got to be decided by unanimous vote, then you look at national security, it was exempted from the treaty in the latest version of the amending treaty, you look at social security and you find as you go through it, while people rightly have worries that they want addressed, that we can show that we have protected the British national interest in each of these areas. So yes we need the amending treaty because it is designed to make the institution at the number of 27 members work better, but yes also the British national interest has been protected.

Question:

Inaudible.

Prime Minister:

Look I am not really so focused on what is going to happen to individual political parties as a result of that, I am more focused on what is in the British national interest and I am saying to you that it is in the British national interest that we set out, even after Brussels, to negotiate in detail these exemptions and protocols and these opt-ins in such a way that the British national interest is protected. And let us now have the debate in the country which will be reflected through what will be a very substantial number of days we will debate this issue in Parliament and people can judge for themselves, as I believe they will, that the British national interest has been protected.

Question:

Inaudible.

Prime Minister:

The reason I am confident about this is that the protocol is in the treaty itself, and most of the arguments that people have had previously on this very particular issue have not properly reflected on the protocol which says these matters are not justiciable in British law, and you cannot extend the remit of the European Court of Justice as a result of the protocol, these are directly in the treaty through the protocol itself and I think that is a protection that people will understand has been negotiated in the British national interest.

Question:

Prime Minister can I ask you about the meeting with the Portuguese Prime Minister today and the Madeleine McCann case. Did you take the opportunity to raise the case and did you ask for assurances that the Portuguese police are still doing everything they can to find the missing girl?

Prime Minister:

I am meeting the Portuguese Prime Minister later and we will discuss this issue. I have discussed it with him before to assure myself that the police authorities are taking the actions that are necessary and there is proper cooperation between the British and Portuguese police, but I have not had the one to one meeting with the Prime Minister that I am going to have later this evening.

Question:

Prime Minister you have mentioned your willingness to move beyond intra-institutional discussions now and it seems that there is one debate about the amount of seats in Parliament where Italy is asking for the same number of seats as Great Britain. Would you be prepared to make some concessions on that point?

Prime Minister:

I don't think these issues are about the amending treaty. Look when I say we want to move beyond the institutional debate what I mean is that everywhere I go in Europe people are talking about jobs, they are talking about prosperity, they are talking about the challenge of China, India and Asia, people are talking about climate change, they are talking about the environment and that is what I mean by moving beyond institutional change, that we can now start to address some of the major concerns whereby working together as a European Union we can make a huge difference. And Europe as a continent can play a huge part in the global economy and global society if it does not look inwards but is looking outwards to the role that it can play in the future.

Question:

There have been quite some discussions on the Africa summit, could you please clarify your position on the UK's level of participation in case Mugabe would come to Lisbon?

Prime Minister:

We will not participate in a conference that President Mugabe is at. I made it absolutely clear that we cannot sit down at the same table as President Mugabe and the reason is we are not prepared to give any credence or credibility to someone who has so ... destroyed human rights in his country, is now responsible for 4 million refugees that have left his country and are now in South Africa, and where the levels of poverty in his country are now running at something in the order of 80%. What has happened to Zimbabwe is a tragedy and we cannot give any comfort to President Mugabe by being at the same conference as him.