Â鶹ԼÅÄ

UK Red Lines intact

• Mark Mardell
• 22 Jun 07, 11:12 PM

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."

• Permalink
• Comments

The Rolls Royce breaks down

• Mark Mardell
• 22 Jun 07, 08:07 PM

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.

• Permalink
• Comments

A French victory

• Mark Mardell
• 22 Jun 07, 09:43 AM

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.

• Permalink
• Comments