Calm before the storm
When Gordon Brown meets his fellow leaders in Lisbon it will be his first appearance on the European stage as prime minister. He鈥檚 got lovely weather for it.
The centre in Lisbon is a delightful combination of aircraft hangar, flying saucer and assorted right angles. He might as well try to enjoy it while it lasts. Because he knows many pundits and politicians are preparing to throw brickbats, not bouquets, when it鈥檚 all over.
He arrives around tea-time for the first session, which is due to last a couple of hours. Then the leaders go into dinner to continue discussions. I鈥檓 told Mr Brown thinks the can all be wrapped up by the time the petits fours arrive. You can tell it鈥檚 his first EU summit.
Navel-gazing
This hugely controversial treaty is the replacement for the European Constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters two years ago.
Supporters say it鈥檚 a set of modest rule changes to allow the European Union to work better, now the organisation is so much bigger. Critics say it鈥檚 a further extension of power to Brussels and an erosion of the nation state.
Among the main proposals:
- 鈥 More cash, staff and a beefed-up role for the EU鈥檚 High Representative for foreign policy
- 鈥 A new job of President of the Council in charge of running meetings like this one
- 鈥 Dropping countries鈥 right to veto policies in scores of areas 鈥 many are technical, others include tourism and space policy
- 鈥 A change in countries voting powers which the government says will give Britain slightly more clout
- 鈥 A bigger role for the European Commission in the area of policing and justice, although Britain can choose not to take part
Like Mr Brown, hope it will all be wrapped up, if not signed and sealed, by the end of tonight鈥檚 dinner. But there are a few difficult issues to clear up and if they can鈥檛 reach agreement they鈥檒l scrap Friday鈥檚 planned session on the challenges of globalisation.
The prime minister of Portugal, Jose Socrates, has told his fellow leaders that reaching agreement on a final text is the challenge for the meeting and is of fundamental importance for Europe. Agreeing it, he says, will mean that Europe can concentrate on other issues and do so with more efficiency.
Mr Brown has written a letter to Mr Socrates agreeing that the Reform Treaty sets a framework that will ensure the enlarged EU can function well.
鈥淭his is the right time to bring to an end to this prolonged period of inward-looking institutional debate,鈥 he says.
Earlier this week, Foreign Secretary David Miliband told me that agreement would mean that Europe can stop 鈥渘avel-gazing about institutions鈥 and concentrate instead of things people care about, like cutting crime and economic competitiveness.
鈥淭hat means we will preserve Britain鈥檚 right to choose on key issues but also that we make sure Europe starts embracing a new agenda of issues like climate change that really matter to people.鈥
So the line is clear.
Schmoozer
But shadow foreign secretary William Hague has warned: 鈥淕ordon Brown has absolutely no moral or democratic mandate to force through the renamed EU constitution without a referendum.鈥
Tony Blair often found these meetings something of a chore, but he was a born schmoozer who saw himself as master negotiator (though some who worked with him wouldn鈥檛 agree).
Brown prides himself on being tougher and more rigorous than his predecessor but he鈥檚 not a born compromiser. As chancellor he was notoriously impatient with the slow grind of euro-politics, allegedly taking his headphones off ostentatiously while other lesser mortals spoke. (Maybe he is a better linguist that we realised and didn鈥檛 need the simultaneous translation. Somehow I doubt it.)
At Lisbon, he鈥檇 be wise to keep his headphones on, even though he might be tempted to remove them if the discussion on gets too intense.
I had half-expected Mr Brown to engineer an easily winnable row that he could sell as defending Britain鈥檚 interests, so he could come home, if not exactly in triumph, with something that could be portrayed as a British victory.
There is absolutely no sign that this is going to happen. British diplomats don鈥檛 expect it and neither does anyone else. It seems the strategy, such as it is, is to get it over with and weather the storm.
Back in Westminster, hacks may ask if he鈥檚 managed to safeguard his red lines, but people shouldn鈥檛 be under any illusions. The red lines are not under attack. No-one has suggested they should be changed, altered or amended. It is simply not on anyone鈥檚 agenda. British diplomats are quite clear that they are happy with the deal on the table.
Juggernaut
So if this turns out to be a nail-biting late-night summit it will almost certainly be other countries that create the drama.
The most serious issue may be the
The Poles are also still insisting that a complex formula on voting weights and powers to delay legislation is written into the treaty itself and not left in an annex.
Other issues may seem even more obscure, such as Austrian concerns about too many German students in their universities (and the Bulgarian worry about how the word 鈥渆uro鈥 is written).
But the atmosphere within the room for the next couple of days will be a restful Zen-like calm for Mr Brown, compared to the reception he can expect outside the hall after the meeting.
Already the think tank/pressure group is in town with an inflatable and gigantic ballot box, to demand a referendum. leader Nigel Farage is here too, eager to have his say.
Why is this treaty so controversial?
Partly because it鈥檚 a replacement for the European constitution, which was rejected by Dutch and French voters in referendums two years ago.
Critics, and indeed some fans, say it鈥檚 pretty much the same thing. They are right, in that nearly all the rule changes that were in that document will be in this one too.
They see it as a symbol that the EU goes in one direction like a juggernaut and won鈥檛 take No (or even two No's) for an answer.
The UK government (and the French and Dutch governments) argue that it鈥檚 not a constitution because it鈥檚 no longer called one, it doesn鈥檛 look like a constitution, references to flags and anthems are out and other linguistic changes have been rejected: the high representative won鈥檛 get to be called EU foreign minister, and EU directives won鈥檛 be re-christened 鈥渓aws鈥.
Trickery and window-dressing, say the opponents.
They say Labour promised a referendum on the constitutional treaty and this is no different.
The government reply is that not only is it not a constitution, it is a different document for Britain than for the other 26 countries because of a series of opt-outs and clarifications. These are their 鈥渞ed lines鈥.
Ministers argue these stop the European Union wandering into no-go areas like foreign policy, social security, the courts and policing, and stop the charter of fundamental rights effecting British law.
Mr Hague says: 鈥淭he foreign policy red line is meaningless, the criminal justice red line is already broken, the tax red line was only ever a con and the so-called opt-out from the damaging Charter of Fundamental Rights is the classic Maginot line because the European Court of Justice can just walk around it.鈥
The dark side
But everybody expects this summit to result in an agreement.
And as I said above, Gordon Brown鈥檚 strategy appears to be put his head down, weather the storm, take the blows.
In Brussels, at least, people say with a sigh: 鈥淭his government won鈥檛 make the argument on Europe鈥.
They mean that there will be no attempt to sell British involvement as a positive thing, rather than always going on about what has been stopped.
I suspect Mr Brown simply sees no advantage in talking about the EU: it incenses some voters, and leaves others cold.
But he doesn鈥檛 seem especially frightened of it as a political weapon either. Privately, senior figures are dismissive of the newspapers campaigning for a referendum, saying that more people declared their religion to be 鈥淛edi鈥 in the last census than signed
But the campaigners do see themselves as paladin battlers against the dark side, and their campaign will move up a gear after this weekend.
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
I am always amazed when some reporters and politicians say people are not interested in what the government does about the EU.That they are more interested in jobs, schools, health care etc. Of course this is correct in a way but to imply the EU will not feature big in the next general election is complete nonsense.
This EU treaty will be used to show not only Brown but all those Labour MPs who refuse to vote against him for what they are ????
Dont forget that if there were enough honest Labour MPs who would give the nation what they promised at the last election they could vote against this treaty and force a referendum.I am sure the nation will be made aware of this at the next election and use their vote accordingly.
You say, Mark, that "The red lines are not under attack. No-one has suggested they should be changed, altered or amended. It is simply not on anyone鈥檚 agenda."
Could this be because they know they carry no weight and so are not worth arguing over?
The United States constitution does not mention a flag or anthem either (nor an official language for that matter), so big deal. In the Netherlands, the government says the Reform Treaty is not the old constitution, because of the absence of said symbols, and a new orange card procuedure that national parliaments can use, but which the UK Labour led European Scrutiny Committee said is of no practical utility. Now in the UK, Brown says the Reform Treaty is not the old constitution, not because of the symbols or clauses on subsidiarity, but because of a special UK protocol - a protocol with uncertain legal consequences, and where the European Scrutiny Committee rightly has passed reservations on.
You cannot eat your cake and have it too. Either the Dutch government is correct, or the British government is correct, or neither are correct.
This whole treaty process has left me with disgust for politicians both left and right. Neither are really interested in making a case for or against Europe, and are probably all happy to just let it pass. But they should not underestimate the damage they have done to European democracy, about an even larger gap between government and its citizens.
Brown and his Labour Government have no right to transfer power away from Westminster. By signing this draft of an EU Reform Treaty in Portugal, they intend to do so.They will have effectively vetoed 'our rights'. It is VIP that we exercise our democratic rights to decide on this important Treaty by referendum. MPs are elected by the people on their manifesto. By refusing,Brown and his government will never, ever again be trusted.
He and a small group of Labour politicians should not be allowed to dictate against the will of the British people.This bodes very badly for Brown.
Poor Mark has faced the excruciating reality of the EU: nobody cares because nobody is sincere.
The spin factor in modern politics has become so pervasive that the voter (who is a busy chap/lass) has tuned out.
The most interesting question for me (as i have studied EU law and find the current debate hugely misinformed by the press due to time constraints - it has to be interesting + fit into a column = goodbye facts) is whether the UK will get a referendum. Or not.
I believe the general public are not stupid, but they are exceedingly tolerant of patronisation, it seems. Everybody I know accepts that a referendum would be held if the predicted result suits the current government. And visa versa, or course. If the great leader doesn't want the public to speak, they will not speak.
This is the democracy we worship? Please. Referenda allow the public to veto government policy, and the case on point is Switzerland. Note that they have stayed out of the EU, and do not regret the fact. Note aso that they have had several referenda on the issue. Referenda to challenge government legislation is a part of their constitution. It is their public right, as the people, to challenge their government's new laws.
I put it to you all that this is real democracy, and what we have is a variety of something else. This point is not without relevence to the discussion. The UK is facing a greater union with a legal regime that is even further removed from direct democracy than the current parliamentary system we have now.
When has the EU ever suggested the right of referenda to be a useful addition to the "constitution of the people of Europe"? I can hear them lauging in Brussels as i type.
"This hugely controversial treaty is the replacement for the European Constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters two years ago."
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well, it's a duck [read: EU constitution]
"Among the main proposals:
鈥 More cash, staff and a beefed-up role for the EU鈥檚 High Representative for foreign policy"
How about establishing some common, unified foreign policy first?
This is just as silly as talking about unified European defence force in the absence of a common defense policy.
P.S. I'm not a Jedi!
To paraphrase an old phrase "Treason in our time."
Jedi Knights for a EU Referendum!
Please don't get me started: the similarities are just too many to ignore (I'm sure I saw the Death Star under construction last time I visited Brussels).
One can only hope that the Poles will come to our rescue.
I think Marcus's final paragraph says it for me. I've worked with politicians of all sorts and I'm not impresed by their unwillingness to communicate with their electorates. They're only interested in telling of things that pretend to place themselves in the best light.
I'm not sure whether this is a treaty or a constitution: but I would still like to know what is new and what has been carried in from past treaties, etc.
Today may see the biggest act of treachery since Philby. How come everyone else in the EU is stating that the treaty is the same as the constitution? We are being lied to about the EU, we have been lied to about teh need for a referendum and we have been lied to in the Labour manifesto. Brown should go now. He is unfit to govern and if we enter this contitution/treaty without a vote then no-one can ever trust Labour again.
I think what this demonstrates is a perfect example of a lack of choice in British politics.
Brown doesn't care if the people of this country want a referendum. What are you going to do, vote the Conservatives, who are just as commited to full European integration as Labour?
It's a sad state of affairs. I just hope that UKIP can get more professional and give people a real alternative.
I'm sorry that Bulgaria's insistence on using the cyrillic script is such a joke to everyone, as it is a perfectly valid claim with well known precedent, that of Greece. With Serbia, Macedonia and perhaps other courntries which use the cyrillic script lining up to join the EU sometime in the future, it is also not only a Bulgarian issue but rather a question of pride for the orhtodox Slavic community of Europe.
Is it any wonder that the general public have such a distaste for politicians when they seem to ride roughshod over the voters.Not only do we have Gordon Brown and Labour not listening but the whole EU parliament do not listen either.
Of coarse it all works out very well for this bloated political and government class whoo seem to do very well out of it,whilst we pick up the bill.
Why the sly dig at Cyrillic?
It is actually quite interesting.
Which script did Cyril and Methodius introduce, if any? More probably Glagolitic. I will leave it to better linguists than I to explain.
Have you been to Ukraine recently? (I haven't checked). The tensions between Eastern and Western Ukraine are not going to evaporate. Surely it would be in your own professional to familiarize yourself with Cyrillic.
I just get depressed with how the 91热爆 on-line services are going to cope with Euro 2012 in Poland and Ukraine (font-sets, diacritics etc. etc.), going by their performance to date.
One of the unanswered questions resulting from devolution in the UK may apertain to the current euro-situation, i.e. the West Lothian question.
Is it the intention of the Labour euro-whips to instruct MEPs to abstain from divisions on matters where Britain has red line concessions?
Opinion polls consistently show that 80% of the British population want the referendum that this government promised in it's manifesto. This figure includes those for and against ratification of the "reform treaty". Any government that ignores such an overwhelming public position is not going to be re-elected. Gordon Brown cannot be so stupid after waiting so long for office. Or can he? Even if this treaty is rammed through parliament, the people will not easily forget such blatant dishonesty on the part of Gordon Brown, or his party. Britons have a deep dislike of totalitarian government. We like to leave that to Europe.
Speak of "navel gazing" ! M.M.'s comment does not focus on quite the same part of the anatomy but makes it sound as if Europe's fate depended on the distance between Gordon Brown's ears and his earphones....
If Broon were that confident of the so called "red lines" he would call a referendum. He won't because he knows he would lose it. He is out of step with British feeling on this, as with many other issues. He is scared of placing himself at the bar of electoral judgement. As Prime Minister he is proving as boorish and inept as he was as Chancellor. Yesterday in PMQs he referred to William Hague as Foreign Secretary...if only
Mark, it seems that your are the last person listening to William Hague.
On substance: The UK has lost its powers to Brussels how many times since 1973?
Yet it still seems to have enough power to hand it over to the White House.
This is not about the treaty - it's about the UK's self-perception as a global player. More precisely, its delusions of grandeur. It's rather pathetic and, frankly, Bulgaria has more serious concerns to offer this time.
Wow, lots of EUro sceptisism here. What about the advantages of the treaty which in many ways strengthens democracy in the EU? Notably in regards to the European Parialment, where its powers are being increased. e.g. It will now have the ability to reject the specifics of the budget and thus CAP will have some serious problems in the future.
What is a nation state but an administrative sub-division of the globe?
Is it not time that the Eurosceptic organisatuions got together to challenge, in the courts, politicians right/authority to give away UK democratic freedoms? Surely, a court would rule that the Labour Party has to abide by its manifesto pledge of holding a referendum. OK, we have the ability to vote New Labour out at the next General Election, but in this particular case that will be too late. It is my understanding that no government can sign up to deals that bind its successors. The slow but ever increasing transfer of power to unelected bureacrats will inevitably lead to trouble in the longer term. An artifically created political structure, constructed without the support of the people is bound to collapse eventually. In the case of the EU it will be because of corruption and undemocratic processes.
"One can only hope that the Poles will come to our rescue."
[Max Sceptic #8]
Well, much maligned Kaczynski Bros, are commonly refered to as 'Kaczors'
[he-ducks] so there's hoping they'll recognize a duck [EU Constitution]when they see it, so just pray that as a result of the next Sunday election they're not replaced by the Leftists, who, by definition, never met the centralist bureaucracy they haven't liked. ;)
The secret is that Brown like his Labour Party colleagues are in full agreement with the entire EU philosophy. The problem is how to sell it to the British population. It's clear they can't jam it down their throats, they can't win in a free and fair election, so they have decided to slip it to them slowly and quietly. The Red Lines are the strategy. These are temporary measures which last for 5 years. At the end of that time Britain either loses them or faces unspecified penalties which it has no say in. There's a link on Robin Lustig's new blog so you can read them for yourself and make up your own mind. Worst of all, the opposition parties seem to be playing dead. You'd think at least the Conservatives would be up in arms pointing all this out but no, they seem to have retreated taking a few meaningless snipes at it from the sidelines knowing full well what the consequences will be. What's more there is no grass roots movement to draw public attention to the issue, protest the lack of debate, or even get signitures on a petition demanding a referendum. Britain's days as an independent nation with a characteristic Anglo-Saxon population and distinct values are numbered. Within a few generations it will become part of a gray homogeneous Euro population with the same mundane mediocre culture from the Atlantic to the Danube and beyond. Only relics of ancient buildings will remind future historians that there once was an England. If they don't care, why should I?
The EU treaty /Referendum whatever Brussels or our present leader wants to call it is such a smoke screen do they think all their voters are daft and don't see through all of this stupidity.If the EU wanted to take the honest way forward they would show real transparency towards their citizen's and put realistic proposals on the table instead of the devious methods they usually prefer to adopt in order to get the treaty past by deception.Gordon Brown and his arrogant foreign secretary could do well to remember comes the hour at the next election which I hope will bring them their just rewards for lying to the UK voters.
It's funny how people say "either the Dutch/French/Spanish etc government is right or Gordon Brown is..." eg post 3.
As in ALL matters, "truth" depends on how you read the facts and interpret them to fit your argument. So, yes, the treaty IS substantially (90%+) the same as the constitution, but it is also substantially different in its rhetoric, symbolism, structure and content. Instead of squabbling over the case for a referendum, why don't we trust Parliament to judge whether this is in our best national interest? If the complaint is that power is ebbing away from Westminster, surely we must value Westminster enough to let it decide on complex international treaties?
Also, why is there a prevailing sentiment that the EU is a mysterious, power-hungry beast wanting to suck sovereignty away from the UK, as if it is a wholly separate entity? It shows a fundamental lack of understanding. The EU is a supranational organisation, of which we are a part, where nation states pool sovereignty so as better to achieve common goals. It is explicit in this new treaty, and all the previous ones, that the principle of subsidiarity should govern the EU's competencies. It is the European Council and Council of Ministers that really has the final say on all matters, the EU was so designed because national governments do not want to give real power away. And why would France, Germany, Poland, Italy and the others wish to have their sovereignty unnecessarily eroded anymore than we do? Look at the history books, we're not the only country in Europe that values our nation-state and its sovereignty!
The failure of the Constitution put the final nail in the coffin of the vision (of an increasing minority)for a federal Europe. The tone and provisions in this new treaty actually strengthen the national governments' position, increases the power of the European Parliament and gives a greater role to national parliaments. A clause states that national security is the sole reserve of member states. The extension of qualified majority voting will, in practice, work in our favour. Realistically, a decision that the UK would desperately want to veto is unlikely to be one that we couldn't find allies with which to vote it down, if it even got that far (after months of consultation, scrutiny and amendments).
Referenda and "red lines" are red herrings! It's just that nobody in government has the guts to make the case, while they prefer to resort to the level of butch, white-van man style posturing the right-wing press adopt towards the EU.
It is worth noting that Italy is objecting to the linking of the number of its MEPS directly to population numbers. This is the system proposed in the Reform Treaty with regard to double majority voting in the Council, except that the actual head count of population will be used.
How can it be right in one area and wrong in the other?
In fact, as is becoming increasingly evident, it is a politically stupid, not to say dangerous, idea being pursued by the larger Member States but mainly on German insistence.
Is Open Europe a Pressure Tank then?
Sounds like plumbing...
Conservative governments never offered referendums when they gave away the UK's power over economic policy to financial markets and over defence policy to the US (while dismantling local democracy all over the country).
It is globalisation that is mainly eroding the nation state, while the EU offers us a way to retain power over our lives by pooling resources.
There is strong evidence to suggest that French and Dutch voters were mainly expressing dissatisfaction with their own governemnts and other, unrelated EU policies, rather than rejecting the constitution itself.
Blair only offered a referendum so he could get it off the election agenda. Now we have a new PM and a new treaty...
Igor wrote: "I'm sorry that Bulgaria's insistence on using the cyrillic script is such a joke to everyone".
A bigger joke is the fact that entrance criterea were fudged and fiddled so blatantly so to allow Bulgaria and Romania premature membership of the EU.
Actually, putting aside new ex-east bloc entrants, I'm still amazed that people consider Greece to have a level of governance commensurate with that of first world nations. According to the 2006 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index Greece ranks at number 54, below the likes of Tunisia, South Africa and Malaysia.
With these nations we are to share our hard-won sovereignty?
It's interesting why the Cyrillic spelling of "euro" is of any concern to those that oppose it (mostly the European Central Bank, if I understand the issue correctly). In both cases, the word would look alien to Latin alphabet literates. (If spelled 'euro' it looks like EYPO; if spelled 'evro', it looks like EBPO; both different from the Latin). Quite capricious to prefer one hieroglyph to another if you don't understand any of them, don't you think? ;)
On the other hand, the euro has been consistently spelled 'evro' in Bulgaria since its inception; it is an established word in that form, and changing it this point is almost impossible. Part of the reason is that in almost all foreign words that begin with 'eu' (there are no native words of the kind), it is converted to 'ev' - 'evtanasija' and 'evnuch' - to give two examples. I believe that this is the case in the other languages that use Cyrillic too.
James, you are right - Cyril and Methodius invented the Glagolitic alphabet; Cyrillic was an adaptation, most likely by ; Ohrid was in Bulgaria at that time, as were Belgrade and Pesht (meaning "oven" - the Eastern half of Budapest), but that's a different story altogether.
@ Stephen (7): indeed it is treason in our time. Our countries' national and parliamentary sovereignty has been whittled away, one small step at a time. And now we come to nearly the end of the line (only culture, foreign policy, defense, fiscal matters and social security remain for the member states, and some of these have already been undermined).
Maybe its time to start thinking about what we did to traitors in 1945, because ask yourself: how is this different?
What a lot of cowardy custards your correspondents seem to be. Instead of belly aching about the best thing that could happen to Britain (expanding the British CM of NI, Scotland, Wales and England into the continent of Europe) they want to sidle into their thatched cottages and hide under Grannie Victoria's skirts. Sorry, the 21st century is global, and you'd better get used to that fact. It's time to play with the big boys.
I have good news for all the people claiming for a referendum and railing against the EU: the Reform Treaty, if approved, will allow a country to leave the EU.
So your plan should be: support the new treaty and then, at the next election, vote for the party that will promise to take the UK out of the EU.
Believe me, a lot of Europeans will be hoping that that party wins!
@Manuel 7
Thank you for your insight but we do not need a treaty to tell Britain we can leave the EU if we want to. Nothing is ever cast in stone, just look back in history.Every empire (that is what they want for the EU)that has been built without the consent of the people in the end fails and the people will win.
This government will regret the day they signed this treaty.They will have to get it through Parliment and then it will come into law just as the country is building up for a
general election.
Brown will get slaughtered at the
polls and then who knows ?????
Mark(of comment no 23),
Britain does not have a charactristically Anglo-Saxon population. That is England. Ultimatly though ethnecicity is largely a mental construct. The world is becoming globalised. Open your mind and stop latching on to immagined communities.