A warning from a senior British source that a European Constitution is "desirable but not necessary" comes in advance of an important negotiating session and is seen by many observers as a tactic as the talks get tougher.
 EU talks still have a way to go |
The British source was later said in media reports to have been the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Foreign ministers gather in Naples for a "conclave" this Friday and will talk into the weekend as they prepare the ground for a summit in December at which the draft treaty is supposed to be agreed.
It is by no means certain, though, that this timetable will be kept as the talks have a way to go and the tendency in the EU is to delay everything until the last possible moment.
The warning therefore may be partly an attempt to speed things up.
Britain's red line
The British warning centres on so-called "red lines" which the British Government insists must not be passed.
These red line issues include the retention of a national veto for the harmonisation of taxes and social security, the payment of the British budget rebate, the protection of Nato as the primary defence of Europe and the restriction of a charter of rights to EU issues.
Heather Grabbe of the Centre for European Reform, in London, said that the British warning was aimed at two audiences.
"The first is the French and Germans. This is to tell them not to push their demands too far.
"The second is the audience at home. It is telling British voters that we are tough and won't give in.
"It is raising the rhetorical temperature but has not changed things that much."
EU watcher John Palmer, of the European Policy Centre in Brussels, said that the British red lines were not the major stumbling blocks in the negotiations.
"I don't take this warning too seriously," he said.
"At this stage of the negotiations, some ministers are incapable of resisting some muscle-flexing from a distance, safe in the knowledge that their positions are not seriously threatened," he said
Real problems
"It is a macho moment," he added. "These British issues are not a deal breaker."
The really hard problems, according to John Palmer, are the new voting system for the enlarged EU and the size of the European Commission.
Here it is Poland and Spain which are threatening a veto, especially Poland.
What upsets the Poles is that, in an agreement reached in Nice in 2000, they were given a generous allocation of the votes which member states use in decisions requiring a qualified majority.
In anticipation of enlargement, the Nice Treaty laid out the numbers each country would get in an enlarged Union of 25.
Poland and Spain were given 27 votes each, only two fewer than the four larger countries Germany, France, the UK and Italy.
But Nice is now being overtaken by the Constitution which changes the system of voting to a simpler double majority of member states and of a substantial majority of the EU population.
The Poles and Spaniards feel that this leaves them worse off.
Other smaller members states also complain that the reduction in the size of the Commission would lessen their influence.
Falling back on Nice
The senior British source, who is close to the negotiations, said that the EU could fall back on the Nice Treaty, so did not in the final analysis need a new constitution.
This is true in that the voting arrangements for a bigger Union were agreed at Nice.
This fall-back position has always been implicit in the British approach.
But it has never been said explicitly. Indeed British officials have up until now refused to talk about wielding a veto.
However, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin is one of many who express confidence that the Constitution will be agreed.
"I am confident because as discussions come to an end, we are realizing that the choice will be a political one. It is about knowing what ambition we have for Europe," he said.
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
It is a macho moment. These British issues are not a deal breaker 
Constitution quick guide
