Archives for June 2007

If journalism is the first draft of history, I may have to go for a major re-write. How much can the draft "Reform Treaty" be changed at an inter-governmental conference, which opens in July? The Germans told us for weeks that an agreement at last week’s summit would only be worthwhile if it was very, very clear. If all the major political points, and indeed the minor ones, were dealt with. They said that the civil servants would just be left with pulling the thing together and sorting out a few legal niceties. Every other government agrees with them. I certainly believed them. You might think this naive, but opponents of the treaty also argue that what it means is clear enough to demand a referendum.

So a couple of days ago I said that a senior academic was “plain wrong”, according to everyone I had talked to, when he argued in an interview that no-one could yet say what the treaty meant. I didn’t name him at the time, but he is Professor Damian Chalmers, of the London School of Economics, and he wrote to me very politely making a powerful case so I asked him if he could put his view here:

"Visitors from Mars would look at the current state of play on the Reform Treaty with some bemusement. This group of European States, having come together ostensibly to produce the richest and most progressive region in the world, cannot even produce a document that anybody can understand or summarise. Is it significant enough for a referendum? What does it change? Nobody is quite sure. So-called experts come out with statements that appear empty, contradictory and arcane. If the visitor were a policeman, the words 'piss up' and 'brewery' might be mentioned. If they were a little green monster, they might take a bit of chewing gum and pop off in their space ship back home.

There is a simple reason why this is so. The heads of state are intelligent people aided by intelligent people. If they had wanted a clear, comprehensive document, they would have written one. It is neither clear nor comprehensive because they did not want it to be these things.

How do we know this?

First, there is the length. The length is 16 pages, and a fair part of this is empty page or waffle. The constitutional treaty agreed in 2004 is 482 pages long. The agreement, whilst it refers a lot to the constitutional treaty, is not intended to be, nor could it be at that length, a comprehensive resettlement of the latter.

Secondly, there is the format. Normally, six months before an agreement (the current time-frame) one would have a framework document. This takes the form of a legal text with square brackets surrounding the points still to be agreed. There is no such detailed roadmap this time. Instead, the 16 pages contain a mixture of declarations ('No constitutional status for the Reform Treaty'); legal texts (the protocols with the UK opt-ins and outs); and instructions. Many of these instructions are vague, incomplete and even contradictory.

Finally, civil servants say getting a final text by December will be a big ask, which would be odd if they only had to dot the i's.

We also know why this is so. The Germans wanted to bring the matter to a head, after two years. Except there was a problem. Two-thirds of the member states had ratified the constitutional treaty and had indicated that the new treaty should be the same, with a few concessions for the individual trouble-makers. The other one-third did not see it this way. They not only had their individual red lines but thought the new treaty should be more modest in tone and substance than the old one. Otherwise, they would threaten a referendum.

How to bridge the gap? Here Angela Merkel played a blinder. The agreement states that the constitutional treaty will only be included in the Reform Treaty 'as specified in this mandate'. The one-third will argue the constitutional treaty matters only insofar as there are references to it in the document, and the rest is up for negotiation (as Geoff Hoon did on Newsnight). As the agreement is incomplete and only makes sense by looking at the constitutional treaty, others will argue that what has been agreed is, more or less, the constitutional treaty (the argument of the Irish government).

Last week was significant and gave many important and detailed markers, but it has also allowed a lot of room for negotiation. In terms of giving the citizen a clear idea of what is going on, forget it!

Let us take the The Charter of Fundamental Rights, a hot issue for the UK.

The bottom line for citizens is whether UK laws can be struck down for violating European Union fundamental rights and when this can take place.

Well, the reality is that since 1990 national laws in quite wide areas of activity have been subject to European Union fundamental rights law. Only last December, for example, the UK was found to have violated them for designating an organisation a terrorist organisation. The charter is only one source amongst many of these fundamental right laws. Others include international human rights treaties and national constitutional traditions all of which are synthesised by the European Court of Justice to generate its interpretation of a European fundamental right.

When do these laws apply? The remit of these fundamental rights laws seem to be extended by the latest agreement to cover national measures involving policing and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, as these policies are now to be treated in the same manner to other policies. This would be a significant extension, although the agreement does make clear that national security is the sole responsibility of member states.

So would the UK be subject to this – the extension of the remit of fundamental rights laws to policing and judicial co-operation in criminal matters - and to the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Well, we have an opt-out from the charter but not other fundamental rights norms... and here is the catch, all the charter claims to do is 'confirm' these other fundamental rights norms. It would be open to any court to find a violation of both sets of norms - and a violation of one would entail a violation of the other - and so the UK would still get caught. But this goes against the spirit of the opt-out, so maybe not...

But what about the opt-in to police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, does it not protect us? It is true we will not participate in future legislation in these fields unless we wish. We are bound, however, by existing laws and decisions of the existing bodies (eg Europol and Eurojust). Moreover, in relation to EU fundamental rights, these bind member states when they are acting within the field of EU law. Even if we have decided not to opt in to legislation here, we are still operating within this field (of police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters) and are therefore potentially bound by EU fundamental rights norms.

And one final spanner to throw in the works. The EU established a Fundamental Rights agency earlier this year to check EU legislative proposals are compatible with, among other things, the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Will the UK be bound by it insofar as its rulings on the charter affect EU legislation applicable in the UK?

Confused? There will also be a few civil servants scratching their heads..."

So is the cat alive or dead? Will we really not find out until October? And I do promise to start writing about something else soon. Possibly. I think I am turning into one of those people others steer clear of in the corridors of Westminster.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The last thing Prime Minister Gordon Brown wants is a referendum on the new EU treaty. Most of Tony Blair's demands at the summit were designed to damp down the calls for a popular vote. Mr Brown, the prime minister (it still feels a little odd to write that after 10 years), has all but ruled it out, and the overwhelming reason he has left the door ajar is because he doesn't want to look like he's not listening. The full treaty doesn't exist yet and he doesn't have to sign the thing until October, and there is little political mileage in shutting off an option, however remote and unattractive.

So what could make Mr Brown take not the course he favours, but the one demanded by his opponents? The short answer is, if resisting it would cost him his job. Or, I suppose, if he underwent a sudden conversion to the democratic or Eurosceptic merits of the case, but I think that is as unlikely as Nick Robinson becoming a pineapple.

Drawing poison

I'll come back to that in a minute, but another answer is: "If Parliament votes for one." The government's preferred option is to ratify the treaty in the House of Commons and the House of Lords and I assume MPs will get plenty of chance to have their say before the final moment.

Most Conservatives will vote for their party policy. The position of the Lib Dems is officially undecided. Many are pretty keen on the idea of letting people vote on individual subjects. Others have seats in the Eurosceptic south west. So, the party just could decide to back a referendum vote, as it did last time. I notice that three Labour MPs have demanded a referendum. That is still rather short of the rebellion of 80-odd Labour members the amendment would need to succeed. But it would all turn the heat up under Mr Brown. Which leads me to the only real reason he'd give in - to lessen the risk of being sacked by the British people in a general election.

The government doesn't just want to avoid a referendum because it could lose it. Campaigns cost a lot of political energy, sap a party's strength and as Tony Blair put it the other day, dominate the political debate for months. So the only reason he would grant one would be to draw the poison out of a general election campaign.

If he and his skilled campaign coordinator Douglas Alexander judge that this is such a divisive, difficult issue, that so many people feel strongly about it that it would pollute a any campaign and seriously damage his chances of winning, then that is the moment they crumble. In fact, in Britain this is pretty much the only reason politicians ever offer referendums - to surgically remove a difficult issue from the party-political arena. This was the only reason Tony Blair went for a referendum on the constitution. The then foreign secretary Jack Straw persuaded him that the demand to vote "on Europe" was cropping up on every doorstep and it would spell heavy, embarrassing defeat in the forthcoming Euro-elections. Although Mr Blair had little idea how he would win a popular vote later on, it was better than losing badly in a few months. He reluctantly did a U-turn, the Conservatives had to pulp most of their leaflets, and Labour didn't as badly as they had feared.

Nextdoor's dominos

So is the debate on the treaty such an issue? It depends on the press, the opposition, and on Europe itself. The Conservatives and the press would have to convince people that the government is wrong - that this is not a simple set of rule changes but something much more momentous. After a slightly uncertain start, they are indeed claiming that the treaty is most of the constitution, and that it is first-order stuff. The argument is put with varying degrees of calmness and coherence, but for my money the best expression of this view is put by Dan Hannan in the Telegraph. If they convince enough people they are right, then the question becomes: "Why doesn't Gordon trust the people?"

Politicians all over Europe are worried about nextdoor's dominos. One of the reasons that it was so difficult for Tony Blair to resist the referendum call was that President Chirac had unhelpfully changed his mind and offered the French people one. Remember how the No-vote in Denmark over the Maastricht treaty rocked British politics? It didn't provoke a referendum but it did strengthen the hand of the Eurosceptics and led to the slow and agonising dismemberment of John Major's authority.

There is no doubt that most governments will want to avoid a referendum, just as in Britain. The accepted wisdom is that Ireland will be the only exception. Back in 1986, the Irish Supreme Court ruled that there must be a referendum on any amendments to EU treaties, after a Kilkenny farmer-turned-economist argued that the Single European Act paved the way for the creation of a European central bank. To its surprise, the government lost the case and Ireland has had a vote on every treaty since. Twice in the case of the Nice Treaty, which was rejected the first time round.

But what about the French and the Dutch who killed off the constitution in the first place?

Sarkozy has just won two elections. He was explicit there would be no referendum. He would be in a strong position to resist a chorus of calls. But there isn't one. The Socialists are divided and demoralised, without a common position. The Greens, the Communists and a small monarchist party have all called for a referendum, but there doesn't seem to be a big debate about it. This could, of course, change, but it would need to be on the piggy-back of a massive Sarko failure in another field.

The Netherlands is a different matter. The Socialist Dutch MP Harry Van Bommel told me that the treaty was "the constitution in drag", and trying to pretend otherwise was "absolutely unworthy" of the prime minister. A debate is going on in The Hague as I write. The Dutch government clearly does not want a referendum but there might be one small problem. The coalition government took ages to form and is a very fragile thing. It includes three members of the Christian Union, a party which campaigned for the No-vote last time round, and, one could argue, raised its profile enormously by doing so. That's why it ended up with enough votes to get cabinet seats. It hasn't yet decided its position. I'd normally assume a minor coalition party would do what it's told, like the Irish Greens, but these are men and women who say their job is to "make a Biblically inspired political message heard". While the Bible has nothing to say (go on, contradict me) on referendums, this does suggests they may be principled members of the awkward squad, less likely than most to abandon their political beliefs in order to cling to office.

It may be a Brit-o-centric view, but I am assuming that anybody who campaigned for a "No" last time would want a referendum this time round.

An early poll?

Spain and Luxembourg were the two countries where referendums were won last time round. Their governments were valiant in the fight to retain as much of it as possible and there doesn't seem to be any enthusiasm to go through the whole palaver again for a lesser document. Indeed, they might risk the wrath of people who felt they ordered their government to get the whole thing in the new treaty.

Denmark could be very interesting. It was planning to hold a referendum on the constitution but, like Britain, called it off after the French and Dutch "No's". The Danish government does not have to have one, and does not want to have one, although no official announcement has been made. But it may be in for a surprise. When I was in Copenhagen recently, talking to students at the university about the issue, I was repeatedly told: "Oh no, you're wrong: we have to have a referendum. It's the law." Well, I'm not wrong, but when public opinion is so overwhelming the legal niceties hardly matter. Incidentally, they didn't want a referendum to vote "No" they just wanted to be heard. A rather more scientific take on my quick chat round a student canteen was an opinion poll carried out after the summit which indicated 70% of Danes want a vote.

I've heard of calls for popular votes in Sweden, Finland and the Czech Republic. I'm sure there are others. Indeed, do let me know if you think your country should be allowed a vote. Anything that raises the issue would be bad for Brown. If Malta chooses to vote it will hardly bring him down, but it's a few TV and radio reports from me, a few days more of press coverage and few more chances for people to raise an issue he hopes will go away.

But the treaty in the headlines doesn't matter so much unless an election is looming. If the EU pot is bubbling and the calls are loud then they would reach a crescendo around the time of a final parliamentary vote, which I guess would be next spring. If that happens, it could put the skids under the idea of an early poll after a year's bounce. Or it could mean a referendum. I don't think it's that likely, I don't think it's going to happen, but if Mr Brown is in that position someone may tell him: "This isn't worth the keys to Number 10. Let them have their big fight about Europe. After we've won."

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

I gave a talk to some teenagers at a local school yesterday and I was stressing that at the heart of journalism is the ability to keep asking questions until you get a clear picture.

Taking my own advice has, I think, driven me half-mad.

In the dead of Friday night/Saturday morning, getting my hands on the reform treaty was the Holy Grail. Or perhaps elusive Holy Writ, for we pored over it, thirsty to drink the truth.

Now it lurks malevolently on my desk, glowing and defying interpretation. Of course, when I really need to quote from it, it has gone.

After 17 years before the mast at Westminster, I am well aware that most stories are a battle for interpretation. Grammar schools - good or bad? Weapons of mass destruction - did they believe they existed or not? And so on.

But this treaty is something else altogether. When in that dead of night I wrote that Britain’s safeguards on foreign affairs and the charter of fundamental rights were there in black and white and it would be pretty hard to quibble with them, I felt I was on safe ground.

But Neil O Brien, the director of Open Europe (a pretty amazing outfit, the core of the old "No" campaign with a fairly clear Eurosceptic agenda but with a meticulous and hyperactive research department that makes some other think-tanks look slow off the block) wrote to me privately and politely pointing out they did indeed quibble rather strongly.

And so do the Conservatives. And then Tony Blair seemed to say in the Commons that in fact they were legally binding because there was a separate over-arching thingy, which nobody had seen, which said so.

Incidentally, David Cameron did say something about Tony Blair’s sweet-smelling trousers, didn’t he? I’m sure he said "fragrant breeches" of promises.

Or take the loss of vetoes. Tony Blair says there are nine serious ones going. Some opponents say 68. The BBC’s research department thinks it’s 32. Usually I would trust that as a solid fact, but I can’t when it’s a matter of political debate.

The scale of the problem became apparent when we asked one legal firm specialising in EU law to call it for us. Or, more realistically, say that it would be a field day for lawyers. Er. Um. They wouldn’t want to go that far. Or Not.

And then a senior academic was interview on our behalf in Britain. I won’t name him, partly for reasons of libel, but mainly because I don’t know his name. But I watched open-mouthed as the interview (never broadcast) was fed into Brussels.

He maintained that the treaty didn’t mean very much as it was only a very rough outline and the civil servants in the inter-governmental conference would decided what it really meant.

This is true of most IGCs but in this case is plain wrong, according to everyone I have talked to. But maybe he’ll turn out to be right after all.

I feel like I’m in a Terry Pratchett novel where, by the altering strength of belief and doubt, a document takes on a life of its own and changes its text depending who reads it, developing a will of its own.

Maybe it has acquired a single legal personality.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

It’s not often that Irish politics reaches the Red Tops but today Bertie and Dermot Ahern get their day, not just in the limelight, but in the stronger glare of the Sun.

It always slightly bewilders me that normally the media, BBC included, never seems very curious about what goes on in our English-speaking next-door neighbour. Still, that's by the by.

Foreign Minister Dermot has made it clear Ireland is likely to have a referendum on the new treaty, as it has on all recent ones. And PM Bertie has said that 90% of the old constitution is in the treaty. Both meat and drink to those in Britain arguing we should have one too.

There are three basic positions among the politicians in various countries:

• It’s not like the constitution that our people appear not to like, therefore there's no need for a referendum

• It’s a lot like the constitution we didn't like, so we need a referendum

• It’s like the constitution that we liked, so we can swallow a few changes

The Aherns, who unlike the Polish couple are not twins, not even related as far as I know, are in the last camp.

I presume Blair will make a statement to the Commons later today and I'll be very interested to see how hard David Cameron goes for him. And what Gordon Brown's reactions are.

Gordon Brown taking over is one of the biggest news stories for years, so will all the talk about this drown out the "call for a referendum" story?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

It wouldn’t be quite true to say that Tony Blair was as fresh as a daisy - but more perky than anyone has a right to be at five in the morning. He’d just won the treaty he wanted. As he talked, a very senior negotiator whispered to me, “What do you make of it?” with the small smile of a tired man who knew he’d done his job rather satisfactorily.

Afterwards I bumped into some profoundly Eurosceptic politicans in the lift, deriding Mr Blair’s words on a positive Europe. “Well, that’s the referendum gone,” one of them said. But the argument is far from over. It will depend how the newspapers and the Conservatives play it.

In fact, Mr Blair knows that he could never stop the demands for a referendum, but he could certainly undermine them. The proposed reform treaty, which won’t be signed until December, is riddled with italicised print put in specially for the British government.

'Transfer of power'

It’s quite clear that there has been detailed political work, scouring the newspapers and websites arguing for a referendum, and answering them. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will affect British law? It says in black and white it won’t. Britain will have to give up its seat on the UN Security Council? The treaty says that is not the case. Britain will lose power through the new voting system? Here, it’s not clever negotiating but Polish intransigence that comes to the aid of the British government. There won’t be a new voting system until 2014.

Of course, the opposition’s ammo hasn’t all been stolen. William Hague issued a statement well before the ink was dry, saying that what we had all seen by then amounted to a major transfer of power. Tony Blair has agreed to give up its veto in more than 40 areas, all of them minor according to the government. Some argue that having a President of the European Council could lead eventually to a directly-elected President of Europe. The European Union gains a single legal personality, in other words the right to join international organisations.

But in this case the devil may be outside the detail, as far as Mr Brown is concerned. Reading through the many comments made by readers of this blog, I come across some very detailed specific arguments. But most of those calling for a referendum take a much more broad-brush approach. They don’t like what they believe is European Union bureaucracy, inefficiency and waste. They feel that they have never had a vote on a relationship that has got much stronger and deeper since the UK joined. And they want one, so they can say “No” and alter that relationship. The absence of a sub-clause or the addition of a footnote will not deter them.

The Conservatives have already called for a referendum. They know this is not an easy argument to keep up, when there is not a chance of Gordon Brown giving in. But they will argue that, like many a Brown budget, it will repay days of careful reading.

Navel-gazing over

As for those who support the European Union, the pragmatists will be relieved and the idealists mortified. The Merkels, Sarkozys, Barrosos and possibly even Browns of this world will be relieved that a union of 27 states can still, just about, reach an agreement.

Above all, they will be glad that the navel-gazing is over, and hunt around for more projects like energy and climate change to show that they are better off acting together. The stage will be set for further Brown/Sarkozy clashes on the economy.

As for the real federalists, they will be bitterly disappointed. The Belgians kicked up a last-minute fuss because the UK had been given too much. There will be protests in the European Parliament that this tiny treaty tears the heart out of a document that was formally and legally backed by 18 countries. Some will grumble about countries like Britain and Poland making the weather rather than those loyal to the vision of the EU’s founding fathers.

There will, again, be talk of an inner core pressing ahead alone. As the outgoing Belgian prime minister has pointed out, there already is one: the countries that are in the euro, don’t have border controls and co-operate on policing. They will feel a glimmer of hope that even if the steps are tiny, then at least they are going in the right direction. Who will be the first to argue this is all very well but what Europe needs is a constitution?

UPDATE: And what did Mr Blair get given at his last summit? Mrs Merkel says it was so late "just a few warm words". Her words for Gordon Brown were a little colder, hoping that Britain's next leader would show a similar commitment to Europe.

Sarkozy said he very much regretted the departure of a man “who has looked for compromise in Europe and taken the United Kingdom into Europe". Then he added: “I've had the chance to speak to Gordon Brown and Tony Blair - I hope and am sure that Gordon Brown, by passing from 11 to 10 Downing Street, will have the heart to have a positive discourse. It's extremely important.”

Perhaps the reason for this lack of warmth was the chancellor's alarm at the way the French president had tried to pull a fast one over economic policy. Mr Sarkozy went on to say the word-change on competition was very important and suggested that it could indeed change EU law. So watch this space. I feel this argument isn't over.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Just got our hands on the latest draft of the treaty.

Tony Blair can claim that he has won all his red lines. Of course, many will feel this was utterly predictable and of course Conservatives and others will say that there is plenty here that deserves a referendum. But Mr Blair has made their job that much harder.

There is just about an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights ("Blair wins right to torture" may not be the headline in many papers, but still…) It says:

"In particular, for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in title 4 of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom."

The Javier Solana role stays as High Representative (rather than Foreign Minister, as the constitution proposed).

EU foreign policy will be decided by "The European Council and the Council acting unanimously". And the European Courts won't have any say over it. None of this will effect the "existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each member state," the draft says, and there's a similar statement about the new foreign affairs job. It stresses there are no new powers given to the European Parliament or Commission.

In the area of justice and home affairs, there are more opt-outs for Britain and an agreement that a third of countries can agree to do more together if they want to.

Still poring over it, but I think it’s safe to say that while Eurosceptics won't like it, it is a lot weaker than the old constitution, and enthusiasts for "ever closer union" will feel gravely let down.

The European Parliament will hate it, and there will be lots of grumbling from disappointed European enthusiasts. Of course it’s not yet a done deal.

Others may kick up a fuss, but the real headache for the other leaders is Poland. Nicolas Sarkozy is straining hard to be seen as the summit saviour. He left the dinner and asked Tony Blair to come with him. They called the Polish prime minister in Warsaw and then saw the president here. Then they rang the PM again. The twins wouldn't budge and the two presidents and the prime minister went back to the dinner.

Now the Germans are suggesting that everyone else should sign up and open an intergovernmental conference, to discuss the detail behind the detail of the Reform Treaty. This is widely seen as an aggressive act, stressing the isolation of Poland - with only one precedent in the 1980s, when Mrs Thatcher wouldn't sign up to something or other (I will check exactly what and how it turned out).

But it seems to me it’s actually handing Poland a trump card. All it does is defer the problem, underline that Poland can wreck the process and increase the risk that everyone else will open up their own issues. But I will ponder this further.

UPDATE: Sounds like the Poles are on board. Some sort of offer to not touch the Nice Treaty voting system until 2014. So not "Nice or death" as Polish slogan went, but "Nice or 2014". By which time, we might all be dead.

UPDATE 2: 1.45AM... You would have thought they would just sign up and go home. But no, the full meeting has broken up and the leaders are holding more one-to-one meetings. The Belgians are objecting that the UK has been given far too much. Someone says it’s going to be 6am. I think they've talked so much they've used up all the oxygen in the Council building. It’s certainly sticky and hot in here.

UPDATE 3: 4.40-ishAM I'm dozing and the mobile goes. "A mandate has been agreed."

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

It’s an iron rule, when there is the most to blog, there isn't the time to blog it.

The British negotiating machine, normally regarded as Rolls-Royce smooth, has been shambolic, according one insider. It’s the Polish prime minister and president who are usually regarded as the most awkward negotiators in the EU, but my source says Gordon Brown is behaving like the third twin.

After Sarkozy’s triumph, I am sure the European Commission and Tony Blair were in a bind. Very close to a deal, focused on the red lines, they didn't want to object to something that hits them out of the blue.

Blair met Sarkozy and the spin was that while competition was not an EU value, not an end in itself, it was a means to an end. Sarkozy needed something to help sell the "no referendum" line to his public. All clear? It wasn't to some insiders, who feared lawyers would weaken the Commission’s desire to take on monopolies and "national champions". It wasn't to Gordon.

Apparently Treasury lawyers said EU law could be changed. So a protocol was added. Mr Blair and Mr Barroso insist this makes it crystal clear that EU law will not be changed.

There has been an air of intense worry around Mr Blair's team. When he appeared, announcing progress, he seemed a bit frustrated, explaining that this is what happens when you re-open an agreement. When you start making demands, so do others. It’s give and take.

I could go into even more detail about which words are in or out. But the real point is that the argument about the economic direction of Europe is very much a live issue. Perhaps people thought Sarkozy was an economic liberal because of the admiration he expressed in his book for the UK.

Some will now say he's an old-fashioned protectionist. But in fact he's a pragmatist and above all a French president. He has to do a balancing act. But while some see the French as hopelessly old-fashioned, I think they are devilishly clever. Protecting their own key industries from competition, while using the rules to operate in other countries may not be pretty, but it’s hardly stupid.

By the way, a title has been agreed to replace foreign minister... High Representative. The same title as now. I preferred the temporary line in the German draft - "the Union’s xxx ". Javier Solana, the EU's triple X, had a certain ring to it.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The British government seems none too worried about Mr Sarkozy ripping references to "free trade" and "competition" out of the planned treaty. They say their lawyers are crawling all over the text and they are not alarmed.

There are two interpretations.

The first rests on the premise that many French people voted "No" because of fears of globalisation, and a belief that Brussels was on the side of big business and Anglo-Saxon economics. You wouldn't know it from reading the British papers, but that is how many on the continent see it. So this could be a presentation sop, so Mr Sarkozy can say, a la Blair, all the nasty bits of the constitution have gone.

The other interpretation is that it’s aimed at stopping the European Commission aggressively pursuing those companies that break the law. The commission is rolling up its sleeves to launch a series of raids on naughty French and German companies. To put it crudely, they can sell gas and water to us, the Brits, and we are not allowed to do the same in their countries, even though EU law says we can. It’s Mr Blair's claim that these days Brussels is backing Britain, or at least his vision of economic policy. Changing the treaty could put a stop to this.

There is an irony here. Mr Blair’s efforts are all aimed at keeping Britain's "red lines". He freely admits to other leaders that his concerns are political. No British minister seriously thinks Britain is about to lose its seat on the UN Security Council, not least because the French want to hang on to theirs. But it’s a constant claim in the press, so he has to make sure it is explicitly ruled out.

There are many other examples and they all take a lot of diplomatic effort and, above all, a close relationship with President Sarkozy. It seems to me there just isn't enough fuel in the diplomatic tank to open up another front, especially if it annoys the Germans and the French, who will be key to allowing Mr Blair to claim 100% success on
the issues he has constantly raised.

So it’s just possible while Mr Blair tilts at what he feels are Eurosceptic windmills, real ogres are creeping past and escaping his lance. So the British popular press may have handed victory to the French.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Tony Blair's demands are "not a menu of options" according to Downing Street. But the EU is keeping something from us. Keeping it a secret. They won't tell us what the leaders are eating at their big dinner until the first morsel is consumed. And surely they know that when no real news is leaking out, reporters have to know what leaders are eating.

UKIP nearly didn’t get any supper. They were almost arrested outside the summit, and had their inflatable bulldozer confiscated. They are not happy.

In my interview with him European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso sounded shocked that some British people, who killed a king to protect the rights of Parliament, should feel that ratifying a treaty through Parliament was "by the back door". What sort of respect, he asked, does that show to the mother of parliaments? Is he right?

The Danish, who have a list of demands, have been told they will all be met. If they work on the Poles. The Poles object to a voting system which rewards countries with big populations so much. The Polish prime minister has shocked everybody here by telling a radio station that Poland should have more votes because it would have a bigger population if Hitler hadn't killed so many people. One of the unwritten rules of the EU is, "Don't mention the war!"

UPDATE : Breaking news. We've got the menu. The dinner has broken up remarkably early which suggests to me the serious business will be done tomorrow. The starter, rollmop with Frankfurt sauce, sounds suitably international. Then artichoke-filled beef. But I bet it was the sour cherry soup that captured the mood.

UPDATE 2: No real negotiations at the dinner: they just went round the table and restated their positions. Blair made a particular point of the Charter of Fundamental Rights being a problem. The real talks will be "bilateral", one-to-one negotiations. Downing Street says: "These negotiations will be real, not rituals."

But I think my colleague Alex Ritson has a story that could be more important than all the others. He's still checking it, so I'm not quite sure how it'll work out, but he should be on the Today programme tomorrow morning. A clue: will this summit see the end to a free-market Europe, and what does that mean for competition policy?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Radio 4 has asked me why European leaders would regard it as a catastrophe if there was no agreement at this summit. My answer - it would deepen an existential crisis that some of them are going through.

Read the rest of this entry

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Tony Blair is feeling distinctly unsentimental about his last appearance on the world stage as prime minister, at this crucial summit. He will be centre-stage not only because it’s the end of 10 years of family photos and late-night deals, but because Britain is one of the two countries making it difficult to replace the constitution.

A lot is at stake. While European leaders waver between predicting a crisis if there’s failure and the admission that life would go on, it is very clear that it will be seen by many as a monumental failure if there is no agreement. It would almost amount to a humiliation for Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel. And for the new boy, President Sarkozy of France, failure would be almost as bad. Allies of Tony Blair say that’s why it’s right that he, not Gordon Brown, negotiates. He can make the most of his personal relationship with those two leaders and take the hits on Gordon’s behalf. And, yes, they have been speaking nearly every day about this summit.

Mr Blair thinks reaching an agreement is touch-and-go. But there is one advantage to negotiating in Brussels, in his view. The horridness of the Justus Lipsius building, standing on the main dual carriage way through the centre of the city, focuses minds and makes leaders want to leave as soon as possible. But he is in no doubt that this will be tough, and his message to other leaders will be uncompromising.

Britain has already won a great deal of what it wants. The word “constitution” abandoned. A “reform treaty” in its place. The title “foreign minister” dropped. But he will tell the other presidents and prime ministers that he must get not 90% of his demands but 100%. This makes me think that an agreement must be just about in the bag. But some of his demands seem almost calculated to offend. For instance, he wants it made clear that Javier Solana, or whoever becomes whatever it is they decide to call now the new foreign affairs chief, is just a servant of the prime ministers and presidents of the European Union and can’t go off and make policy on their own.

Sour feelings

There’s no doubt some countries feel sour towards Britain. Earlier this week, in Luxembourg, I was at a news conference held by the Czech deputy prime minister. When one journalist referred to “the constitution” he wagged his finger and said with a smile, “The treaty you mean”. Some of the journalists erupted. Spanish and Germans objected, with genuine passion: “But you signed it! If it was good two years ago, what’s wrong with it now?” If that’s what mere hacks feel, imagine what the politicians say. I tried to draw a senior British diplomat down this route, suggesting the British red lines were all about domestic politics not about the national interest, as perceived by the government. Urbanely, he replied there was no difference. Not for diplomats anyway.

Mr Blair intends to be a great deal more forthright. He is unapologetic that his problem is with the home front. It’s one of the reasons he wanted to negotiate at this summit, rather than hand over to Gordon. He will tell his counterparts from other countries that, yes he signed it two years ago but there’s no point agreeing to something if the government is going to be forced into a referendum. It would mean another two years of uncertainty, and if the referendum was lost Europe would be back at square one in 24 months’ time, with some saying they had to start all over again. His message will be: “Look guys, do you want a deal or not?” There is no point in him agreeing to anything that comes in beneath the bar he has set up.

Some will argue, as do the Conservatives, that he has set the bar artificially low, knowing that after a great deal of huffing and puffing he can jump it with ease. This is certainly true about some elements of the “red lines”. No-one has suggested, recently, that the veto on tax should go. But it’s a red line. There are other subjects like making sure Britain isn’t out-voted in policing and justice which are not in the bag, but where there is an outline agreement that is unlikely to come unstuck. But other areas, like protecting British labour law from interpretation by European courts, is trickier. Mr Blair may demand an assurance the Charter of Fundamental Rights will only apply to European institutions, not countries’ national law. Yet there is currently an insistence in the draft treaty that it will be legally binding.

Making the case

There is no question that even if Mr Blair wins every single one of his demands and there is icing on the cake, like the Dutch demand for a bigger say for national parliaments, the Conservatives will still demand a referendum. There are plenty of things that Mr Blair likes that they do not. A president of the council. A smaller commission. They want a referendum if more powers go to Brussels. He would argue that giving more power to Brussels can give more power to Britain, or at least Britain’s arguments, whether you are talking about energy policy or an extension of the free market.

Of course, the blunt fact is that the government thinks it would lose a referendum, and it is probably right. Many enthusiasts for the European project think that is Mr Blair’s fault for not making the case strongly enough. He sees himself as a passionate pro-European who does make the case, but blames the media for not reporting it. He thinks if the press changed its tune, public opinion would become pro-European very quickly.

He has no time for Eurosceptics, feeling they are ridiculously old-fashioned. He admits there is now a new breed, not xenophobic, with sophisticated arguments. But he thinks it’s absurd to argue that a smallish country like Britain would have more clout negotiating with China or India on its own. He sees the relationship with Europe and the relationship with the United States as combining to give Britain a far bigger role in the world than without these alliances. And he strongly believes that it just happens you can’t be semi-detached from Europe. Perhaps you can’t from the States either.

He thinks that the role of a full-time president for the council is important, to give coherence to just this sort of negotiation in future. But on the brink of giving up a major political role, he isn’t in the mood for another one. And it’s not on offer for a couple of years even if there is agreement in the next few days. President Bush’s suggestion he should play a role for the quartet in the Middle East is a different matter. He doesn’t rule that out. So he might be back on the world stage sooner than we would have expected.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The constitution will officially be "abandoned".

You read it first here. Well, maybe you didn't, but we had it first.

Crowing aside, it does seem the British government has largely got its own way, although there's a lot of detail to be settled. But Eurosceptics are pointing out that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be legally binding and they've got the CBI on their side.

In the Commons, perhaps with the scent of victory in her nostrils, Margaret Beckett says she won't buy "a pig in a poke". Of course, opponents fear the reverse. As I understand it, they are saying it means buying a pig in a sack which might turn out to be a worthless animal like, ahem, a cat.

Eurosceptics fear that the little piggy will grow and grow until it becomes a tuskily threatening wild boar.

It will be interesting to see whether the argument stays with the detail or turns into a much more general row about Europe and the UK.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

That famous threesome turned out to be just a phone call. Sarkozy was going to go to Chequers for dinner with Blair and Brown. But then found his diary was full. A snub? Diplomats, ever diplomatic, "are not reading it that way”.

They stressed they agreed over the UK's red lines. He said that he was a pragmatist, who knew they had to sell it to the British people, just as he had to sell any new treaty to the French.

This is how Patrick Blower saw it for the BBC's News at Ten:

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

A meeting of top civil servants in Brussels to discuss the German draft of a new treaty is still going on. Much later than expected. And much less leaky. I certainly expected to have seen a copy by now. As I haven’t, it's difficult to make sense of the titbits I have heard. It's 11 pages long and would be called “The reform treaty”.

As I understand it:

• The name foreign minister is dropped - but there’s no suggestion of an alternative

• The European Parliament and Commission wouldn’t get any more powers over foreign affairs... which upsets a lot of countries

• Countries would have the right in to opt in or out of deeper co-operation in the area of justice and policing

• The Charter of Fundamental Rights would be legally binding

• There’s a mention that the summit will discuss voting weights... the bee in the Poles' bonnet

This is a bit of a curate's egg for Tony Blair. Many countries will think that the Germans have caved into his demands, but there’s plenty of red meat for Eurosceptics to get their teeth into. I suspect the meeting is going on so long because it's seen as giving too much away to the UK.

This is just a draft (that I haven’t even seen) and there’ll be a lot of tinkering between now and the wee hours of Saturday morning.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

It’s just possible your child goes to bed every night cuddling up to that favourite toy, Hoofy bear or tiny Ted, unaware that its soft fur could, just could, be made out of Rover’s third cousin.

What is the subject that members of the European Parliament find makes their postbag bulge? Not the constitution. Not relations with Russia. Not energy policy. But the trade in cat and dog fur. It seems that Cruella Deville is alive and well and operating from China. Evidently there are farms full of cats and dogs and their fur is used on toys and gloves, to be sold in Europe. So MEPs are voting to ban this vile trade, making it illegal in the EU, as it is in America and Australia.

But hang on. Why is it vile? Is this sense or sentiment? Obviously, making a coat out of giant panda or tiger is wrong. They are rare. Cats and dogs are not. Is farming them for their skin or fur worse than using any other animal? Of course, many people hate all animal fur clothes, but they are not illegal. Is it just because we see them as pets that we find it gross? It seems to me animals have the best chance of being protected if they are cute, or look a bit like us. Saving the slug is not on anyone’s agenda, although a slug-skin jacket probably wouldn’t sell very well either.

I’ve every respect for people who object to using animals for food, clothing or sport. Their position is coherent. Incidentally, do people object to, say, horse-riding or using bullocks for ploughing? I am sure the European Parliament could be persuaded to mount a campaign against animal slavery. But anyway, it’s a coherent position.

But if we eat beef, what’s wrong with leather? And if we wear leather, what’s wrong with fur? And if we allow fur, what’s wrong with Rover and Tiddles providing it?

Don’t worry, I’m not sitting at my dining room table typing this, wearing robes of red setter. I am as guilty of sentiment as the next person. I literally threw up when I once ate horse meat by mistake, and shiver when I pass horse butchers in France and Italy. I would never eat lion or monkey. Which is fine. I don’t have to base my personal choices on logic. And neither do you. I once knew a vegetarian who would eat chicken. Many eat fish. She had every right to be mammalist, and they have every right to be warmbloodist. But should lawmakers restrict our choices based on illogical sentiment?

UPDATE: Thank you for your comments. I have replied to some of them here.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

LUXEMBOURG: The mood among those who want a deal at the weekend is gloomy. One foreign minister who wants as much of the constitution back as possible said this meeting had been between "a disaster and a catastrophe". The Czech foreign minister says he's cancelled his weekend appointments. It's going to be what Jack Straw used to call a "three-shirter" when the prime ministers and presidents meet for the European Council in Brussels.

It's not only the Brits who are a problem, the Poles are sticking their heels in, demanding a new voting system based on the square root of population, which gives more power to middle-sized countries like theirs.

Under the existing proposals they have 79 votes, under their plan they would get 65. But the Germans get reduced from 170 to 96, and the UK from 124 to 82. Malta would be bumped up from one to seven.

There really has been no movement here. But in London Mr Blair has been re-crafting his red lines. Conservatives say they are artfully drafted. It's true, for a master communicator Mr Blair's language is a little odd. What does is it mean that the British foreign secretary won't be "displaced"? What is "control" of common law? If he won't allow a "big say" over the benefits system, what about a "small say"?

But Mr Blair has a point when he says that over the last 10 years Europe moved in Britain's direction: some would say that is why French voters rejected the constitution in the first place.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

LUXEMBOURG: Despite the French media's much-vaunted respect for the private lives of politicians, the papers are full of the split-up between the defeated Socialist presidential candidate, Segolene Royal, and her long-time partner, Francois Hollande, the party's general secretary.

The big headline across the Parisien is "La Rupture". This could have a big political impact as the two are struggling for the party's soul and perhaps its leadership. As I pointed out rather coyly during the French election, it's already had a disastrous effect on the socialist campaign.

It's one of those tricky areas between the personal and the political. As it happens, I (personally) agree with many of those commenters on my blog entry about Sarkozy who said that we should keep our noses out of people's private lives. But I fail to see how a man appearing in front of journalists at a big public event is in any sense "in private", and in this particular case Madame Royal announced the split herself on French radio.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

It never rains but it pours. As foreign ministers trooped out of their meeting, the pelting rain on the roof over the VIP area made them difficult to hear. I was just thankful there was a roof. But listening back to the recordings several messages emerge out of the storm...

The Poles have told the other European Union foreign ministers that "they cannot accept" the currently proposed voting system. Even if Blair and Brown can be kept happy, the Poles may still veto any new treaty.

And the British government still has a hard job on its hands.

Other countries have, according to the German foreign minister, agreed to "take a step" in the direction of those countries like Britain who have problems, by agreeing to give up the title “constitution” and consenting to a smaller treaty. In return, the plan to give the EU a single legal personality and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding are "not to be touched." Technical stuff, but believe me, it could make Mr Brown thunderous.

In the meeting itself, sheltered from the weather, I'm told Mrs Beckett spoke last, after the dessert and coffee, and gave something of a lecture on the state of public opinion in Britain. Often these meetings are about technicalities. But she told her colleagues that a referendum would be extremely hard to win in Britain, and there will have to be one if any treaty is too big or too ambitious. There was a bit of a hush when she finished.

But there's a perennial problem for British governments. While Mrs Beckett was telling the plain truth, it is also a tough negotiating position. One of the most common ploys of trade union leaders is to tell the bosses, "It’s not me: I just couldn't sell this to the lads, they'd go mad." In any negotiation you go in hard and then have to modify your position. And that's what some call betrayal.

You could say that is part of the problem of negotiating in secret. But it’s actually the problem about negotiating in dimly-lit semi-public.

Read about the questions the Germans put to the other countries here, and about the British government’s red lines here.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The sandwich supper has started and so have the disagreements. The German foreign minister has said, "We're in for a very long night." But the Foreign Office expected it all to be over in a couple of hours. Still, it'll take quite a while for the foreign ministers of 27 countries to answer the Germans’ questions.

The Germans are trying to sort out some fundamental issues. This is what they are asking:

• Is it OK to drop the term constitution and call this an amending treaty?

• Should the EU have a single legal personality?

• Shall we drop the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the treaty but make sure it is legally binding?

And for many the big one:

• Shall we treat foreign affairs just like any other subject, instead of leaving nation states to sort it out between themselves?

In the jargon, this last one is, to the Germans, “overcoming the existing pillar structure”; to the British government, “pillar collapse”; and to Eurosceptics, their worst nightmare… although some will rub their hands with glee at the fight to come.

Read my account of the British government’s red lines here.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, goes to the foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg for sandwiches and the first face-to-face chat/argument/blazing row about the new treaty between elected politicians this evening.

All such meetings are called Gaerc (General Affairs and External Relations Council). For my first few months here I was convinced some chap called Gary was calling all the shots on the world stage. And why Luxembourg when there’s a big building called the Justus Lipsius in Brussels for such meetings?

Well, it’s the summer and in the summer, we have to go a warehouse with attached padded cell (if we can find a picture you’ll see what I mean) in the one bit of Luxembourg that’s grey, horrible and has more roundabouts than Milton Keynes. Because of an agreement made in the dawn of time to help out Luxembourg, one of the poorest counties in the EU. Oops my mistake it’s the richest isn’t it? Excuse my bile. Oh well, a two-and-a-half-hour drive on a Sunday rather than four stops on the metro. This is what people call a “jolly”. I’d rather have a few more hours with the family.

Still, back to business. Mrs Beckett goes armed with new, or at least clearer, British red lines:

• No changes to labour laws. That’s aimed at the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

• Nothing that would over-rule British (I think I mean English and Scottish) common law. That’s aimed at the plan to get rid of the veto in the area of justice.

• Nothing that threatens the ability to conduct an independent foreign and defence policy or removes the UK seat on the UN Security Council. That’s about the creation of an EU foreign minister and all that goes with it.

• Nothing that would change the cost of social security. That’s also aimed at new rights in the charter.

I’ll try to keep you updated on what happens, if I can make my laptop work in the press centre. This usually takes as long as driving there.

On the World This Weekend (at 1pm on Radio 4) Shaun Ley will be interviewing the Europe Minister, Geoff Hoon. They asked me to write something on what ideas in the new treaty could mean in practice.

This is my effort:

“What will it mean for you and me? Well, it depends who you believe. The argument about the new treaty will be a battle for interpretation. So the Germans suggest that the existing Charter of Fundamental Rights should not be in the treaty because that would make it look like a constitution. But they say there should be a few words stressing that it’s legally binding. The government is against that: they are alive to fears from the CBI that for instance the right to strike and to association enshrined in it could lead to challenges to British labour law in the European courts.

What about proposals to drop the veto in policing and justice? This would mean Britain could be outvoted by other countries. To take one idea that’s floating around, it could mean extensive new rights for suspects - police could be made to give people a document setting out their legal rights. It’s also a bit like taking a way a trump card. If countries know anyone can block an idea, they take more care to give concessions. On the other hand, this takes much longer and can end up with a ragbag of amendments to a simple proposal.

And if you believe one gentleman, who writes to me regularly, it will mean armoured cars full of German police trundling through the channel tunnel to stop us ever leaving the EU.

It’s pretty likely Britain will get an opt-out, as it already has on migration policy. But diplomats say the trouble with opt-outs or opt-ins is that you can opt into something that looks great, and in the course of a year’s negotiation it changes beyond recognition. Or you can opt out and sit on the sidelines wish you could help design something the government is now rather keen on.

But I think it’s perhaps a rather dull-sounding proposal that highlights the gulf of interpretation. At the moment when ministers meet, whether it’s the fisheries ministers or the presidents and prime ministers who are their bosses, it’s organised and chaired by a different country every six months. At the moment it’s Germany, before it was Finland, next it will be Portugal. The proposal is to make it the work of an individual, a president elected by the heads of government. Senior Foreign Office sources say this is much better. The little countries can make a hash of things, while this gives continuity and so strengthens the hand of the traditional nation state.

Nonsense, says the think tank Open Europe, it’s more power for a Brussels-based bureaucracy, and takes power away from the nation states. There’s nothing to stop the president of the council and the president of the commission being the same person. That would be a hugely powerful role and people will say it should be directly elected. Hey presto! You have a president of Europe, like the president of America.

Fantasy? Well it’s all crystal ball gazing really, but the debate and its outcome rest on such unprovable predictions.”

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The European Union gets criticised for a lot of things but is an MEP right to blame the organisation for the situation in Gaza?

The Cypriot MEP Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, a leading member of the Green group says the EU should "shoulder the blame" for ignoring Hamas and not getting talks going. He points out that the EU is a member of the quartet and the largest financial donor to the area: is he right that "ostracising" Hamas is the root of the problem?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

A few hours ago we got the first real evidence of what is planned for the new treaty. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is going to be tricky. The British government wants it out, partly because there are fears it might extend workers’ rights, but mainly because it makes the treaty more constitution-like. Ministers think opting out would look silly. So they want some sort of text that says it won't have any effect. But that's exactly the opposite of what some other countries are after, according to the German presidency. These countries mostly aren't too bothered whether the text of the charter is left in or taken out - the one thing they insist on is that the treaty should make it legally binding.

But maybe the European Court has already achieved the same thing by other means? The European Commission has gone out of its way on its website to make the point that "the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has already made an impact on the European courts" and that "new case law is being established all the time". It goes on to say, "The Charter is already featuring regularly in the deliberations of the Advocates General, and is therefore bound to play a part in European Court of Justice findings."

The government expects to be given a kicking over the new treaty, no matter what. I hear from all sides that because of the debacle over grammar schools, David Cameron is bound to throw some red meat to Conservative MPs and supporters who feel that they've rather given up being proper Conservatives. A call for a referendum on Europe is just the sort of thing that will get them stirred up.

A couple of months ago, Mr Cameron wasn't sure. First off, he didn't want to go "banging on about Europe" and worried that it would raise memories of Mr Hague saving the pound but not getting elected, and, much worse, the bitter divisions in the dying days of the Major government. But there was another worry - political pragmatism. If Mr Cameron ever becomes prime minister, the logic goes, he knows he would have to sign up to an EU treaty at some time or another and the last thing he wants to saddle himself with is a commitment to a referendum.

Giving more power...

On the other hand, those who feel strongly about the EU (against it) would be quite happy for him to be in this position. I'm told by an impeccable source that the current thinking is that a Conservative government would find its poker hand immeasurably strengthened if other countries knew Britain would have to hold a referendum on anything serious. The source says that Britain could get the Czechs and Poles to join in and "bring the whole integrationalist process to a halt".

But that is for the future. For now, the Conservatives have decided to campaign hard for a referendum. But how far apart are David Cameron and Tony Blair? Mr Cameron says that he wants a referendum on anything that gives more power to Brussels. Mr Blair has said what is unacceptable is anything that "fundamentally" changes the relationship between the UK and Brussels." Privately, officials have said that anything that looks like a constitution or gives more power to Brussels has to be excluded. Is there a difference?

Well, it will be a battle for interpretation. I don't think anyone is in any doubt that giving up Britain's veto powers would "give more power to the European Union". Equally, I don't think anyone would bother to argue that involving national parliaments more would fall at this hurdle. But what about the idea for a new way of running meetings?

At the moment, the council (that is, the EU body made up of national governments) is chaired by one of the 27 countries. Every six months the country in the chair changes. At the moment it is Germany. Before that it was Finland. Next in the queue is Portugal. The big countries argue only they can do it well, although they say it quietly so as not to offend the little ones. So the constitution came up with the idea that an individual, elected by the 27 heads of government, would become president of the council for two-and-a-half years.

Zero-sum game?

Senior Downing Street sources argue this is not giving more power to the EU. They say that through better organisation it would strengthen the council, that is the power of the nation states, and so can't be seen as giving more power to the EU.

Think tanks like Open Europe, on the other hand, say that the president, based in Brussels, with a big staff, would inevitably become part of the machine and would work closely with the commission. Moreover, they say there is nothing to stop the president of the commission and president of the council being the same person - and that would indeed be a powerful role, paving the way to a US-style directly elected president. So, they say, it not only gives new powers to the EU, it leads to a huge increase in power. There will be many such arguments in the next few weeks, although few may follow them in detail. I will.

It is interesting though that the government will be fighting, as it were, on territory chosen by the enemy. It's a little odd that the government has not tried harder to put across the argument that it's not a zero-sum game. Internally, some have urged them to try to sell the line that in some areas where the UK wants quick agreement, like co-operating against terrorism, "more power for Brussels" could equal "more power for Britain". Blair says it, but only when he has to. Those passionately in favour of the EU are constantly frustrated by the government's unwillingness to put the case, and I can't see Brown being any different.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Just seen a copy of a report by the Germans to national governments about the new treaty. Got to rush because I’m trying to do something for both Radios Four and Five. On first sight it's not great news for the British Government.

It says that Britain, France and the Dutch can have a smaller, amending treaty, not called a constitution - but other countries have made it clear this is “a major concession” and “they insist on the need to preserve the substance of the innovations agreed” in the run up to the constitution.

They want next week's summit to give a “precise and comprehensive” mandate to a conference in the autumn. And they say among the sticking points are still...

• The question of the primacy of EU law... a big one this.

• Terminology... not sure what this means (I mean, I do, but not in this context).

• The charter of fundamental rights... they note that some (like Britain) want this out of the treaty and others oppose this. So they suggest as long as it is made clear that it is legally binding that will be ok.

• Details of foreign policy... including whether there is a foreign minister...

• "Delineation of competencies" between EU and member states.

• The role of national parliaments.

This, of course, is not the end of the negotiations. Sorry for the breathless tone... must rush.

UPDATE: Here are some key excerpts from the German document:

"All Member States recognise that further uncertainty about the treaty reform process would jeopardise the Union's ability to deliver. Settling this issue quickly is therefore a priority... there is a very strong demand for the Union to increase its efficiency, to enhance its democratic functioning and to improve the coherence of its external action."

"A certain number of Member States underlined the importance of avoiding the impression which might be given by the symbolism and the title 'Constitution' that the nature of the Union is undergoing radical change. For them this also implies a return to the traditional method of treaty change through an amending treaty, as well a number of changes of terminology, not least the dropping of the title 'Constitution'.

"Such an approach is not incompatible with the demand from those Member States which have already ratified, that as much of the substance of the Constitutional Treaty as possible should be preserved. They are ready to consider the alternative method of treaty change... They have made it very clear however that this would represent a major concession. They insist on the need to preserve the substance of the innovations agreed upon in the 2004 IGC."

"Some delegations have requested that the text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights be removed from the Treaty. Others strongly oppose this move. Most of the latter could however accept it, provided that the legally binding character of the Charter is preserved by means of a cross-reference in the body of the Treaty."

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Regular readers of my Europe Diary will still find a considered diary-style piece here every Thursday. This blog allows me to continue as before, while adding other posts from time to time.

The European Union’s foreign minister is in earnest discussion with senior, uniformed military men in the rather rudimentary military ops centre in Brussels. He’s already given the order that European troops should go into action. On pale pine desks, soldiers and civilians operate computers, the screens filling with maps of a foreign country, detailing borders, the weather and even the current condition of roads. Men with lots of pips on their shoulders ponder the best airstrip on which to land the European Union’s army. Fantasy? Yes, but only just.

First off, I am watching an exercise, not a real operation. Secondly, Javier Solana is currently the EU’s High Representative: it was the constitution that would have given him the title Foreign Minister and that proposal probably won’t survive a new treaty. Thirdly, the EU doesn’t have an army, any more than Nato has an army. Like Nato, it does have military personnel from member countries who work together on a regular basis, and if this operation was real it would probably be the Nordic Battle Group getting their boots dirty.

I am at the launch of the European Union Military Staff’s ops centre in Brussels. Men and women in subtly different shades of khaki are clustered around computer screens, pointing and having quiet debates. I spot officers from Britain, Cyprus, France, Sweden and Ireland but there will be many others represented in the 40-strong team.

They’re planning a peacekeeping operation. In the fictional African country of Alisia, attacks by the rebel National Freedom Movement are growing worse and causing huge refugee problems. The distribution of aid has become difficult. The officers here are co-ordinating, via encrypted satellite, with national headquarters in Sweden. There are no infantry taking part in this initial operation, but the centre is designed to put 2,000 of them in the field. This practice and any real operation would be carried out under Mr Solana’s authority, acting under instructions from the 27 nation states that make up the EU.

'Jackboots marching'

But why does the European Union need this Brussels-based operation? Other EU military missions have been directed from the three existing HQs in Britain, France and Germany. New HQs in Italy and Greece are expected to be up and running soon, so why the need for a sixth? Lt Gen David Leakey, a former chief of staff in Northern Ireland, is the director-general of the European Union Military Staff and he’s remarkably frank. He tells me, “There are political considerations. France, the UK or Germany may not want to act. A certain political liability goes along with providing the headquarters, an implicit liability. We can’t be sure the operational HQ of a member state will be available, so this gives us extra flexibility.”

A man who lists chainsawing among his hobbies, he has cut to the point. A military operation would never be given the go-ahead if France, Britain and Germany were against it, but it’s quite likely none of them would want to take the lead role. This is a way of getting round that, and sharing political responsibility.

In the lift on the way up to the ops room an American journalist fulminates, “They won’t say what it’s really about, draining sovereignty away from countries like Britain!” A Spanish journalist retorts, “Just like Nato?” His answer to her seems to be that the EU has money to carry out its own operations. It is a running sore with some people: why does the EU need its own military, when the bulk of its members are also part of Nato. The suspicion of many is that it plans a “Euro army”, independent of the USA.

Veteran Eurosceptic Lord Pearson, in a recent debate in the House of Lords, said the EU’s desire to have its own force headquarters was “inspired by France’s deep psychotic need to bite the hand that freed her in two world wars,” and could damage Britain’s relationship with Washington. In the same speech about the European Union, albeit talking about the scope of European law, he said: “You have to be pretty deaf not to hear the jackboots marching, and pretty naive not to realise they are coming this way.”

Gen Leakey’s answer to the question “Why not Nato?” is a pragmatic and interesting one. “In the sort of area we are dealing with, military force is never the answer. The solutions are civil and political, economic. The peacekeeping approach is increasingly ‘Civ/Mil’- for instance co-operating with civil police. The European Union has all of this in-house. We also work very closely in conjunction with the Commission, which has huge sums of money to spend on development aid and stabilisation, and so we can co-operate with that side more easily. The advantage is, it’s comprehensive.”

'Division of labour'

In the ops room I see an example of the rather cold-sounding “Civ/Mil” in action. Jan Moerkerke is a civilian expert in property law, who normally works for the Belgian treasury. He’s studying border maps on his screen, planning what happens when the immediate crisis in Alisia is over. The refugees who’ve fled into neighbouring Arcadia will want to return one day. They weep no real tears for their lost homes, carry no real pathetic suitcases, clutch no real children. They exist only in the minds of EU planners. But the loss of house and home is one very real consequence of war, one that stores up hatred and bitterness, ready to trigger more bloodshed in a few years’ time.

Deciding who should own what land is one of the hardest things to sort out. Jan is in charge of this judgement of Solomon. “You have to face it after a ceasefire. Documents are stolen and burnt, that’s what happens in a war. People want to come back, but how do we arrange that?” He enjoys this secondment, dealing with big-world problems. “I guess Belgium became a bit small,” he says.

Back at the news conference, people feel the question “Does it undermine Nato?” hasn’t been answered. Mr Solana jumps in: “I will take that question. There is no question of competition but a division of labour, which is necessary with the number of crises we have. The needs are many and the resources are limited.”

I was filming this event for use in a piece about the new European treaty, the idea being that an EU constitution, like an EU military force, is a step (whatever sort of step, in whatever sort of boot) too far for many British people. So far I have heard nothing about what might be included in the new treaty about defence. The EU’s own briefing on the constitution says “defence provisions... have been substantially strengthened”. In particular, there is a mutual defence clause.

Whatever is in the treaty, I am pretty certain that this sort of defence co-operation will continue. What do you think? I’m particularly interested in hearing from past or present military people: Is serving under an EU mandate any different to serving under a Nato or UN one? And any Irish: how does it sit with your traditional neutrality?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

During the French election I meant to write something about the way Sarkozy had annoyed French winemakers by revealing he never touched a drop, but I never got round to it.

I guess it was “prescription drugs” that were responsible for this performance at a news conference during the G8 summit.

No wonder Blair talks about a “feral” media: if this had happened to him, it would be the only source of discussion for days. It’s been no big thing, as far as I can see, in the French media.

UPDATE: Thanks for your comments. I have replied to some of them here.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

As far as I can see, only the Telegraph followed UKIP’s interpretation of Barroso’s speech - but then I am checking online. Reading his words, is this interpretation right?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

I've been listening, on and off, to the debate on the constitution in the European Parliament, featuring both national MPs and the MEPs themselves. The overwhelming view appears to be that they accept that any new treaty will be slimmed down but that it mustn't be so small as to be worthless. If it is, then an inner core will have to be formed. I've been listening via the European Parliament website whilst doing other things, so I haven't names or nationalities for most of them but here is a flavour:

"If Europe doesn't get a constitution it can't modernise."

Italian MEP: "We can't go forward at the pace of the slowest. It's not the task of the fastest always to wait."

"Purely national concerns, partisan and narrow interests, could hijack the development of the European Union and unravel the constitution."

"There's talk of getting rid of any mention of the symbols like the European flag. It's a symbol that shows we've overcome division, cruelty and war. Undermine the symbols and you undermine people's confidence in Europe."

Finnish MEP: "Without the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it's not worth having a treaty."

Polish MP: "Let us convince those with reservations our only salvation is to move forward together."

The President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, also spoke. I strongly suspect newspapers will carry stories headlined: "Euro leader tells Blair to ignore public opinion." That, at least, is what UKIP is briefing. As it was one of the bits I missed, I've been back to listen again. He was talking about the strong backing the British government has given to commission policies on energy, competitiveness and reform, and continued: "We have to have the courage to stand up and say, 'You cannot have that, if you do not agree to a minimum consensus on institutions'. We have to stand up in front of our national public opinions and not give in to populism. We have to have the courage to say, 'If we want a strong Europe politically, an open Europe, we have to fight for it.'" But "Barroso urges Blair to persuade Britain" is a poor headline.

...And a date for all your diaries. Thursday is European wind day. Please mark it in an appropriate way.

PS - Thanks for the comments on my earlier post. I've replied to some of them - you can read my responses here.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

When the French and the Dutch voted against the European constitution the big question was: is it alive, is it dead? And that led to lots of metaphors about being in the emergency ward, on life support, and whether the oxygen should be switched off. I know because I used them myself. Now, two years and a month later, I feel fresh analogies coming on... The constitution is dead, but its vital organs will be transplanted into a new treaty. The argument between European leaders is about how big an operation this is going to be.

Or perhaps it’s better to say that the constitution is going to be reincarnated, but the British government hopes it will come back as much lower life form – a mere fly, not worth the bother of swatting.

For the game in several important countries is to avoid a referendum at all costs, on the assumption that if you ask people, they will have the temerity to say "No".

It’s actually the new French President Nicholas Sarkozy who is the driving force behind this reincarnation of the constitution as something less than itself. He first proposed a smaller, compact treaty last winter, and it’s in his interests to get a deal, any deal, as quickly as possible. If he strikes while his mandate is hot, he can duck a referendum. Let it drag on, and Paris may be alight with street protests about his planned economic reforms – then the pressure might not be so easy to resist.

Mr Sarkozy has embarrassed Tony Blair by suggesting they’ve done a deal already. As one EU official growled, the European Union is more than France and Britain. But Germany wants a deal this June as well - the triumphant conclusion to their six months in the EU’s driving seat.

Of course, the one question they all ask Tony is, "Do you speak for Gordon?" He answers, "Yes". The two men spoke five times last week about the subject, although Brown is reserving his judgement.

Forget newspaper tosh about Blair binding Brown’s hands. While the chancellor doesn’t seem keen to have his fingerprints on any June deal, there will still be months of detailed negotiating to go. And it’s Gordon Brown Prime Minister who’ll have to sign up in December, so he can’t really pretend it’s all down to that other bloke.

Of course, walking away from the whole thing has huge attractions. But Mr Brown will not want to anger both Mr Sarkozy and Mrs Merkel. When you move into a new house you don’t want to alienate the neighbours straight off. Mr Brown, of all people, knows that.

So the British government is trying to exclude anything that smells even vaguely like the constitution. The Dutch are very much behind this, and the Czechs and the Poles also want something pretty fly-like in weight and unswattability.

Who’s against this? Well that’s the trouble - just about everyone else. The argument of countries from Spain to Slovenia is that they’ve already backed the constitution. They like everything in it and they want as much of it back as possible. As ever, there’s a gulf in the way this is seen. What will be portrayed on the continent as Britain getting everything its own way will be portrayed at home as a total sell-out. If Mr Blair and Mr Brown can persuade the other countries that resurrection is impossible, they’ll still have to persuade voters that the constitution isn’t coming back, body and soul.

Have I stuck my neck out too far saying Brown cannot be bound by Blair? I hear he may be worried that in the dead of night, when the coffee has run out and fatigue takes over, Mr Blair may just give away too much. That would present him with a dilemma: unstitch the deal (and anger Sarkozy and Merkel) or risk the wrath of the Eurosceptic press. I’m told that he could try to unstitch at least part of the deal anyway, because he wants to be seen “battling for Britain” and is unwilling to offend the Daily Mail, which currently isn’t too hostile. This may be a difficult position. Is there any deal he could get on a new treaty that the Mail would applaud?

At the risk of boring you all early on, but in the interests of clarity, this is what I understand Blair is trying to exclude:

• Calling it a constitution, or any mention of flags or anthems. That battle was won ages ago.

• The idea that this is “a consolidating treaty” - Blair wants it to be "an amending treaty". This sounds technical but is politically vital because the government will argue that no Conservative government ever gave a referendum on treaties amending existing texts.

• Losing the veto on proposals about policing and justice. Britain could win an opt-out on this. It already has a similar opt-out on migration policy.

• The Charter of Fundamental Rights. Britain is signed up to the charter already, but the government thinks putting it in the treaty makes it look more like a constitution. Mr Blair may have to fight hard to win this battle.

• Moves to give the EU a legal personality. Again a tough battle.

The British government will not object to:

• A change to the way meetings between governments are run. At the moment a country is in the chair for six months at a time (it’s Germany now, Portugal next). The plan is to replace them with a president elected by the other presidents and prime ministers.

• A change in the way votes are counted, to give more power to countries with bigger populations.

• Cutting the number of commissioners, so that not all 27 countries have one.

But watch out for Poland. They want to change the voting system proposed in the constitution and to return to a system proposed under the Nice Treaty. Their strange battle cry, “Nice or death!” is back. It boils down to the fact that they got a good deal under Nice, seven years ago, and don’t want the old enemy Germany to gain more power. They want a system based on the square root of population. I have nightmares about having to do a graphic on this. They are also now arguing that they can’t do a deal in a few days' time, they need at least a year. But the point is, the Poles may block any deal, causing fury in most of the EU27 but transforming Mr Brown’s forced grin turn into a genuinely sunny smile. Could some other country end up sitting on the naughty step this time?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

For the past two years I've been the BBC's Europe editor, covering the politics of Europe and the European Union from chemical directives to the future of Kosovo, from the argument about headscarves in Turkey to climate change in Spanish vineyards.

It's a huge patch so don't expect this blog to be comprehensive but I hope over time it will touch on all the really big subjects of importance.

Europe is at a crossroads, uncertain about its future direction economically culturally and politically. Politicians and people are even unsure about its boundaries. How Britain sees its relationship with the EU is central to this.

Although I have been writing an internet diary every Thursday since I began this job I'm new to blogging. Frankly, after a trip to a new place to cover a new story I think that you and I gain more from allowing me some pause for reflection before reaching for the keyboard. I still think that, and will try to keep up a regular column published on Thursday mornings. But this format allows me to add to that on a daily basis.

It's particularly important right now, with moves to design a new European treaty really hotting up.

Just one other thing I will highlight. In an effort to understand the complex way the European Union makes laws I have set myself the task of following proposals to curb CO2 emissions in cars until they become law (or until I change jobs or keel over, whichever is the sooner). It's an important story, which will affect how and what we all drive, and I hope to cover it in more detail than any other medium can provide.

A final thought. Without being ever so 'umble, if you are a British TV licence-fee payer, you pay my wages. I respect and value your opinion and take seriously thoughts, complaints and suggestions. And if you are from outside the UK, I still love to hear from you. Over the past two years I have been impressed with the thoughtful, intelligent and informed level of debate the diary has provoked. I hope we can keep that up with the added spice of dialogue in this blog.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

I've been the BBC's Europe editor since the autumn of 2005. Before I had been working for the BBC at Westminster for ooh, I thought it must have been at least 10 years. When I came to do the sums I had been covering British politics for 17 years. How time flies when you're enjoying yourself.

And enjoy myself I did. I ended up as chief political correspondent concentrating mainly on the Ten O'Clock News, and before that the Six. My previous incarnation was as political editor for Newsnight. I also enjoyed dressing up and making strange contributions to This Week, a programme that still reaches parts that other political programmes can't.

Before I joined the BBC I worked for a Channel Four programme called The Sharp End which was about "the world of work" - and before that was industrial editor and general news reporter at LBC. I began in commercial local radio in Leeds and Teesside.

I got a 2:1 at Kent in Politics and before that went to Epsom College in Surrey.

I live in Brussels with my wife and three children. The fox got the rabbits, the cats died sometime ago but the teenager has a couple of rats. I like cooking, eating, reading and sleeping. These have never let me down: Lee Perry, Joe Strummer (except by dying), Massive Attack, Thievery Corporation, Iain M Banks, Phillip Roth, Haruki Murakami, Michel Faber.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?