Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Happy British diplomats

• Mark Mardell
• 15 Oct 07, 11:39 AM

To read newspaper stories of EU bullying and Britain's red lines collapsing you would think that the British delegation to Luxembourg would be in a ferment.

Not a bit of it. Britain has hardly entered the debate on the treaty except to endorse it.

Portugal's Europe Minister, Manuel Lobo Antunes, told me in a news conference: "The UK is happy with this text. They made an important intervention in favour of the treaty, so I don't see any major problems."

There has been one minor change. The Foreign Office has managed to remove the word "shall" from a passage about national parliaments' obligations to support the European Union.

But most of the debate has been about and

My feeling is that this is very much a done deal as far as Britain is concerned, but we will have to wait and see if Gordon Brown feels the need to thump the table in Lisbon for purely domestic reasons.

But the Foreign Office people here are adamant the deal they have is good for Britain.

• Permalink
• Comments

Wielding clout

• Mark Mardell
• 15 Oct 07, 12:02 AM

I’m off to Luxembourg and what Jack Straw used to call the padded cell.

Today’s meeting of foreign ministers could flag up any last minute hitches or objections to the European which will be the main topic on the agenda at this week's summit. It takes place and will be the first time prime ministers and presidents of the other 26 EU states see Gordon Brown in action as boss.

But this regular foreign ministers' meeting is fascinating for another reason. Both critics and fans of the new treaty agree that one of its main aims is to extend the reach and clout of the European Union in the world. It will be easier for the EU to sign treaties, it will have a beefed up who will not be called foreign minister, but will combine the Javier Solana’s current role with that the That will give him much more cash and a staff of at least 5,000 in

But look I’m interested in whether you think it’s already too much, or too little. about relations with the following countries:

• - a "step change" in EU involvement, involving more humanitarian aid and training

• - possibility of a new statement backing UK demands for the extradition of Litvinenko’s suspected killer

• - plans for tougher sanctions

• - plans for sanctions against the gem and timber industry

• - report on talks about the status of Kosovo

• - increase in number of EU border police

• - a new military force to guard refugee camps

The British government is particularly enthusiastic about the first four. It’s been urging more engagement in Iraq ever since the end of the war but it’s only become possible after a change of heart, and government, in France.

The Russians were furious about and have made it quite clear that this should be a matter between them and the UK alone. Mikhail Kamynin, a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Britain should not seek to raise the issue further at EU level.

"Moreover, in London they should clearly realise that such provocative actions masterminded by the British authorities will not go without an answer, and cannot but entail the most serious consequences for Russian-British relations," he added.

So British diplomats think an EU statement hits harder than anything they can do on their own.

Doing the detailed work identifying new targets for sanctions in Burma and Iran is also British policy.

This, to me, is interesting. It is clear what some of the smaller countries get by being part of a in a grouping that includes France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and the UK. But the British government also thinks that it exercises more clout in the world when acting as There’s little sign of the UK, at this meeting at least, being dragged down any road it doesn’t want to travel along.

But would this be better done by agreement among the bigger, more powerful countries? Does having Malta and Slovakia on board make any difference?

Clearly, many British people instinctively recoil at the idea of the EU expanding its foreign policy role, and feel it must be at the expense of Britain’s national interest.

But is it in fact those who are arguing for a re-think who would damage Britain national interest, in the name of sovereignty?

• Permalink
• Comments