Into the padded cell
The , 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 (). 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鈥檚 a big building called the Justus Lipsius in Brussels for such meetings?
Well, it鈥檚 the summer and in the summer, we have to go a warehouse with attached padded cell (if we can find a picture you鈥檒l see what I mean) in the one bit of Luxembourg that鈥檚 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鈥檚 the richest isn鈥檛 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 鈥渏olly鈥. I鈥檇 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:
- 鈥 No changes to labour laws. That鈥檚 aimed at the .
- 鈥 Nothing that would over-rule British (I think I mean English and Scottish) common law. That鈥檚 aimed at the plan to get rid of the veto in the area of justice.
- 鈥 Nothing that threatens the ability to conduct an independent foreign and defence policy or removes the UK seat on the UN Security Council. That鈥檚 about the creation of an EU foreign minister and all that goes with it.
- 鈥 Nothing that would change the cost of social security. That鈥檚 also aimed at new rights in the charter.
I鈥檒l 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, . They asked me to write something on what ideas in the new treaty could mean in practice.
This is my effort:
鈥淲hat 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鈥檚 legally binding. The government is against that: they are alive to fears from the that for instance the right to strike and to association enshrined in it could lead to challenges to British labour law in the .
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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 perhaps a rather dull-sounding proposal that highlights the gulf of interpretation. At the moment when ministers meet, whether it鈥檚 the fisheries ministers or the presidents and prime ministers who are their bosses, it鈥檚 organised and chaired by a different country every six months. At the moment it鈥檚 , before it was , 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 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 , it鈥檚 more power for a Brussels-based bureaucracy, and takes power away from the nation states. There鈥檚 nothing to stop the president of the council and the 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鈥檚 all crystal ball gazing really, but the debate and its outcome rest on such unprovable predictions.鈥
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 91热爆's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Another red line that is hidden in the sand: no question of discussing Menwith Hill and Echelon, which David Owen unsuccessfully tried to dismantle when he was foreign secretary. Spying one one's "partners" for the benefit of the USA trumps anything else
As ever, the big Quest to find a compromise between pro and contra is about to result into a compromise neither are happy with. This isn't helping anyone.
Personally I'd like to see the idea of a two-speed Europe introduced after all. A group of enthusiastic nations can go and form their (con-)federation if they so please, while the others enter into an economic union with said (con-)federation, thereby maintaing their sovereignty in many fields.
Enough of this compromising business, it clearly isn't working. We're just stumbling from one crisis into the other now.
With so many 'opt-outs' for the UK will they ever fully 'opt-in'.Surely they must realise that together in Europe we are much stronger than when we go it alone-or has the UK debate gone too far back to the nationalistic stance? Is that the impression a modern forward looking (European ) nation like the UK wants the world to believe? We are your partners-we consolidate each other.
Brian Ireland
WHEN THE BUREAUCRACY IN BRUSSELS DUPLICATES THE ORDER AND CIVILITY FOUND IN BRITISH COMMON LAW, AND APPLIES THIS TO ALL, THEN IT WILL BE SAFER FOR THE BRITS TO OPT IN FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION.
thank you for this interesting post. however, one must notice that behind this new 'simplified' eu treaty is a silent and hidden change - as openly admitted mr giscard d'estaing - to the eu identity: the new treaty that is so rapidly pushed by the germans and french limites the voting power of any country but germany, france and britain. it secretly carries the whole new spectrum of things. it must be said now that the words used are wonderful but what there is behind them no one really is happening to notice.
it will be quite ridiculous to say that the new eu treaty is so needed for new europe to work. certainly, the eu president, eu foreign minister are needed only for the 'big countries' when the problems happen - to smooth anything that can be smooth out more in favour of russia and the big business. for the smaller and smallest ones, when the problems arrive, the common eu foreign policy and its foreign minister, with the voting power of germany and france, will brushed off any discrepancies of their own.
that's the real truth.
just look how panicked the key eu authorities are now, including mrs. merkel.
thank you.
There is no evidence that the Brtish people want it so people like me just won't recognise it.
European federalists realise that they can no longer get integrationist measures past electorates in referendums. Hence they have reverted to old style salami tactics, slicing away national sovereignty a bit at a time. There will be the usual horsetrading and last minute stich-ups. The government will parade the shreds of sovereignty it has managed to save rather than the powers it has irreversibly conceeded.
Europe will of couse be back for these at a later date.
Five years ago I made a prediction to some friends in the US State Department, That the EU would try to evolve into one political unit. One that would that would be controlled by Germany and France. Britain will be squeezed out a little at a time. The doing away with each members veto, electing a President and Foreign Minister by popular vote, having the EU take over the UK鈥檚 UN seat will in time evolve into Germany ruling all of Europe! The political word shifting is just smoke, no matter what the 鈥淐ommon Binding Document鈥 is labeled, treaty/constitution/??, the end result will be the same. Nations that have op-outs/ins, will see them go in to the dust bin, the final players will do away with them via a parliamentarian slight of hand. A unified popular vote will result in all the old rivalries and feuds being revived, which will not be to any ones benefit and wiil ultimately lead to complete caustic collapse. Europe will have become the 鈥淣ew Middle East.鈥
Big Brother could really come into it's own here. The modern symbol of our "ya boo sucks" society.
I propose that all the EU ministers be closeted in a secret location (they seem to like that)under the merciless glare of TV cameras, for at least 10 years.
That way they could scheme away while the rest of Europe gets on with things.
Would anybody watch? I doubt, it but then that's more or less what happens now anyway!
L.S.,
Yes, in April, June and October, the Council meet in Luxembourg instead of in the Justus Lipsius. But don't worry, because the connection between Brussels and Luxembourg is much better than the one with Strasbourg. (Which is not only further away, but also much more annoying to drive.) Also, obviously all the lower meetings, including COREPER, continue to take place in Brussels...
Why do most people spend most of their time debating the negatives of the EU? Is there no time to discuss the positives of these measures?
Brian Ireland - imho we are actually stronger on our own as this country's government can make decisions for the bebefit of the people of the UK (which is after all what they're paid to do) more quickly without having to refer to the EU.
Aaron Mckenna - because the negatives from the EU cost British jobs, British freedoms while the positives are - well what? a free market (but I can't bring in unlimited amounts of booze or fags) a healthy subsidy from us to the rest of the EU (save Germany) - freedom for East European workers to depress wages in this country for non skilled workers, a red instead of blue passport, a minimum of is it 17% VAT? Can't think of any other advantages off hand.
To Nick Wood
Big advantage - no more wars in Europe! Arguing in Brussels (or Luxemburg or Strasbourg) over constitutions and fish quotas might be boring but it beats how we used to settle disputes.
We either stay in the worldwide first division as part of the EU (up against the other 'teams' of the USA, China, Japan and India) or slowly but inexorably drift into the second division on our own. There is no other choice.
Are we so insecure of our culture that we see everything from Europe as a threat and so paranoid that we think everyone is against us? How about finding some allies and fighting our corner instead of grumpily taking the ball away and saying we won't play because we are better than everybody?
It really is time Britain grew up. Winston Churchill understood there had to be a United States of Europe one day and thought Britain should be in there leading it - he was hardly someone to sell us out was he?
Would it help if we introduced language in the new treaty that declares English people to be a superior race?
Because this is what the entire UK debate on "Europe" is about.
The loss of the empire is fact. Get over it or seek therapy.
Mark
The way the UK should stop the integrationalist countries' petty litle centralist scemes is for the UK to have referendums whenever there are proposed changes either in the EU's rules, or any new EU regulations & directives proposed. As new regulations & directives flow in almost weekly, the UK should offer to have a regular referendum process for them, eg annually, so that these new EU rules could NOT take effect in the UK until they had been a referendum on them. When I lived in Australia, I voted in 4 referendums that all occurred on the same day. The government won two of them, & lost two. It was treated as quite a routine event.
In addition, there needs to be a procedure for nations to withdraw their previously given assent if the results turn out more negatively for them than previously expected. Again referendums could be used for this also.
As for an EU president, I believe that former politicians should be automatically barred from participation, in preference either for ordinary EU citizens, or eg mature age sporting heroes &/or movie stars etc!
L.S.,
@Watchet: Sorry to burst your bubble, but for the majority of ordinary EC business, QMV (Qualified Majority Voting) applies, making a UK boycott meaningless, as well as simply a bad idea. As for the rest of your idea, it sounds like what the French did in the 1960s, the empty chair policy. It was a royal pain in the butt at the time, and it lead to the adoption of the Luxembourg compromise. The adoption of the Single European Act in 1988 was a response to that compromise, or rather an attempt to finally return to workable procedure.
Nick
Regarding the influx of Eastern Europeans deflating the wages of unskilled workers - these people are doing the jobs that we English consider ourselves unworthy of - e.g. veg picking, cleaning, chamber maids etc. We wouldn't have the rate of inflation we do now if this cheap labour wasn't available. Sorry if you can't get the cheap booze or fags you want, but as smoking and alcohol related illness are costing the NHS billions a year, is that a bad thing?
Mark - I share your frustration, and sometimes think I am the only UK citizen in support of the EU!
Good Evening
During my experience the European dream that may have been envisioned by Churchill has transformed itself from the "Common Market" to the "EEC" and now the "EU".
What the British public may have believed they were voting on in the original referendum as some sort of trade agreement has now become a vast bureaucratic and costly giant that surely is benefiting none of its members.
I don't believe that any of the members have the appetite or motive to go to war with another although some continue to cite that as a reason to continue the arrangement. If they did no treaty or pact would prevent them as we have seen in the past.
When I hear comparisions of the federalisation of Europe with the USA I cringe. The USA is a federal country comprising states which are allowed to have their own rules. The federal government controls its own borders. Isn't that a bit like us and our county or metropolitan councils?
Surely the only way the EU could ever work without endless argument would be to become one federal state with devolved power at a lower level which I doubt any individual citizen really wants.
Why is every tax payer in the EU contributing to a needless level of bureaucracy which they don't need?
Yes, we should share in trade and skills and embrace diversity but surely not at such a financial and political cost.
Re posting number 11
Aaron McKenna wrote 'Why do most people spend most of their time debating the negatives of the EU? Is there no time to discuss the positives of these measures?
Hey Aaron... you start.
List one positive benefit of the EU that could not have been negotiated between friendly sovereign nations? For every one you come up with (fat chance) I will list 10 negatives at least... which will explain why we concentrate on the negatives... there's more to talk about.
Roger Hayes