91热爆

Passionately pro-Europe?

• Mark Mardell
• 26 Jul 07, 12:59 AM

Pity the poor Piris group, their partners and children.

These are the legal experts from each of the 27 EU countries who are being asked to do a most un-Brussels-ish thing and work through August. They will be fleshing out the new Reform Treaty so that it is ready for perusal by the European Union鈥檚 foreign ministers in early September.

Although I was still in Turkey at the time, as far as I can gather the unveiling of the intergovernmental conference earlier in the week was something of a damp squib.

Perhaps this was intentional. Although the Brits are the greatest worry, no-one in the European Union establishment has any interest in anyone trying to re-open arguments or question the smooth ratification of the treaty. Almost uniquely for a major document, it was The cunning blighters had failed to spot one thing: some of the Eurosceptics have been dashed clever and have actually gone and learnt the bally language.

Dishonesty claims

In Britain, those opposed to a new treaty are doing their level best to keep it in the news, bobbing way beneath the surface of all that flood water. They want to garner support for their argument that the government鈥檚 case for the treaty is unravelling, and that it is pretty much the same as

The shadow foreign secretary William Hague has saying the government are out on a limb when they claim this is not the same as the constitution. Labour MEP attacks this as 鈥渋ntellectually dishonest鈥�.

say their research shows that 96 % of the treaty is the same as the constitution with only 10 items out of 250 dropped.

The former Europe Minister accuses them of mis-translating the French to suggest there will be an EU foreign minister, rather than a

The Conservatives鈥� Europe spokesman keeps hammering away, arguing that it is 鈥渢he constitution under another name鈥�. A government on the process sets out the nature of an 鈥渁mending treaty鈥�.

as Britain鈥檚 relationship with the EU will be 鈥減rofoundly altered鈥�.

Much of this depends whether you accept the government鈥檚 argument, which it can鈥檛 state as baldly as it would like. It would go something like this: 鈥淲e never thought it was a real constitution in the first place but once they called the wretched thing a 鈥榗onstitution鈥� it was hard to resist calls for a referendum. Now we鈥檝e got rid of the word and all the mentions of flags and anthems and other constitutional stuff it doesn鈥檛 look like a constitution. So even if it is pretty much the same as the old document there鈥檚 no need for a referendum. Now, can we get on with something more interesting?鈥�

Sexier subjects

Funnily enough, it鈥檚 the sentence I have just invented that I鈥檓 most interested in at the moment.

For I think all the signs are that Britain has its most passionately pro-European foreign secretary since Robin Cook, who intends to win, not duck the argument about Europe. Jack Straw and Margaret Beckett were in terms of New Labour鈥檚 boundaries, sceptics.

David Miliband鈥檚 first visit was not to Washington or Iraq, but Paris and Berlin. The white paper states quite clearly that the European Union is 鈥渃rucial鈥� to Britain and 鈥渁t the heart鈥� of its efforts in the world. Mr Miliband has made it one of his top priorities.

That鈥檚 a pretty bland, politico-speak sentence - but think about it.

In Mr Miliband mocked the idea that the Foreign Office had 10 鈥渟trategic priorities.鈥� So he has whittled them down to just three:

• Tackling extremism and its causes

• Climate change

• Forging a 鈥渕ore effective European Union to help build prosperity and security within European borders and beyond"

Out goes fighting international crime, supporting the UK economy and managing migration - all on the surface sexier subjects than the EU. Which makes me think he really means it.

Neck out

In the same speech he states: 鈥淏ritain acting alone does not possess the power or legitimacy to directly effect changes on the scale required鈥� in the world. He repeats his call for the EU to become the 鈥淓nvironmental Union鈥� and goes out of the way to argue for the EU to play a bigger role in foreign affairs, 鈥済iving better expression to the common commitments of nation states鈥�.

Now, I have heard Jack Straw and Margaret Beckett say similar things in interviews or when put on the spot in the Commons. But Mr Miliband is sticking his neck out, emphasising that this analysis is central to his approach.

Indeed, in he suggests Russia should amend its constitution to accept the European arrest warrant if it wants freer access to EU markets.

I don鈥檛 want to overstate the significance of this, but many senior British politicians who support the EU don鈥檛 go out of the way to give it good reviews, and give positive examples of where they think it increases Britain鈥檚 clout in the world. They think it just puts another barrier between their argument and their audience.

I think, come the autumn, we are in for a more interesting battle than we thought. But however strongly Mr Miliband believes in his case, I doubt he wants to test it in a referendum.

• Permalink
• Comments