Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Situation in Gaza

• Mark Mardell
• 15 Jun 07, 11:55 AM

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 , 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?

• Permalink
• Comments

Tories gird for battle

• Mark Mardell
• 15 Jun 07, 12:15 AM

A few hours ago we got the first real evidence of what is planned for the new treaty. 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 . 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 has already achieved the same thing by other means? The European Commission has 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 , David Cameron is bound to throw some red meat to Conservative MPs and supporters who feel that they've rather given up being proper . 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, (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 . 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 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 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 , 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 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.

• Permalink
• Comments