Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Euro, Giscard Meeting/Future of Europe Convention and PMOS/Godric Smith.
Euro
Asked how long the trilateral meetings between the Prime Minister, Chancellor and Cabinet Ministers were, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that he wouldn’t say specifically. Journalists could take it that, all together, they were taking up a sizeable chunk of the Prime Minister and Chancellor’s day. Pressed further, the PMOS said that we were not giving a running commentary on the meetings taking place. Suffice to say that the Prime Minister and Chancellor were devoting a serious amount of time to them. There would be a discussion on the issue at this week’s Cabinet, to be followed by the Treasury’s assessment due to be circulated on 26 May. The issue would then be discussed again at the Special Cabinet on 5 or 6 June. Asked if the meetings were fairly evenly spread over the next three days or so, the PMOS said yes. Asked how many Ministers the Prime Minister and Chancellor had met with today, the PMOS repeated that we were not giving a running commentary on who was being seen today, tomorrow or the next day. Asked where the meetings were taking place, the PMOS said they were happening in the Prime Minister’s office in Downing Street. He took the opportunity to express his sympathy for those journalists who had been asked to write ‘colour’ pieces, if they were doing so, on the basis of our colour-free briefings. Questioned as to whether Ministers had all done their ‘homework’ over the weekend, the PMOS said it went without saying that the Cabinet were giving serious attention to what everyone recognised was one of the most important decisions any Government could take.
Giscard Meeting/Future of Europe Convention
Asked if this evening’s meeting was the last one the Prime Minister expected to have with Valery Giscard D’Estaing before the final draft was presented at the European Council, the PMOS said that he was not aware of another meeting before the Summit next month. In answer to questions, the PMOS said that given we didn’t yet have a final text, he did not think it would be helpful to comment on various drafts currently floating around. The final text, which would be presented to European leaders at Thessaloniki in June, would form the basis of the IGC, due to begin in the autumn. However, it was only at the conclusion of the IGC, where everything needed to be agreed unanimously, that a document would be produced which would need to be ratified by Parliaments. Asked if he was saying that there would have to be a vote in Parliament in order to ratify the treaty, the PMOS said yes.
Asked to set out Britain’s red lines, the PMOS said that we were approaching this issue in a constructive spirit because we believed that enlargement was good for Britain in terms of jobs, security and prosperity. That said, it was well known that there were things on which we were more keen than on others. For example, we favoured ideas relating to an elected head of the European Council, reform of the presidency system and QMV on issues such as asylum. On the other hand, we had doubts about other issues such as the ‘double-hatting’ of foreign affairs. Equally, we had said that in areas regarding tax, defence and foreign policy, we would act to ensure that there were no changes against our interests. Asked if we were weakening our position on the issue of borders if we were considering QMV for asylum, the PMOS said he would dispute absolutely the suggestion that we would be surrendering our borders. We were simply acknowledging that asylum was a pan-European problem. It was not an overstatement to say that we had been in favour of taking stronger action at a European level than other countries. Consequently, pursuing QMV on these issues might, in fact, work in our interests. Put to him that there seemed to fewer red lines in the case of this treaty than there had been prior to the Nice Treaty for example, PMOS cautioned journalists against getting too far ahead of themselves at this point. We had underlined many times that there were particular areas where we were not prepared to accept changes. Those areas were well known to everyone. Equally, it was important to approach a negotiation like this in the right spirit so as to achieve what was best for the UK. The European Convention was a precursor to the IGC where all change would have to be agreed unanimously. The White Paper before the Nice Treaty had been published before the conclusion of the IGC that was taking place at the time. We were not yet at that point given the fact that this IGC hadn’t even started. Asked whether only the existing fifteen members of the EU would be allowed to have the final say on the treaty or whether the accession countries would be able to vote, the PMOS said that only the fifteen existing members would be allowed to have their say.
Asked whether any ‘unilateral’ action that the UK wanted to take on asylum would be ruled illegal once the policy area was handed over to Brussels, the PMOS said no. He pointed out that having QMV on a European level did not mean that national Parliaments would not be allowed to put in place their own measures. Questioned further, the PMOS pointed out that the fact that EU asylum policy had to be agreed unanimously at the moment had not stopped the UK producing its own asylum legislation in recent years and tightening areas where we believed more action needed to be taken.
PMOS/Godric Smith
The PMOS informed the Lobby that he had told the Prime Minister in recent days that he was planning to leave his job as PMOS at some point later this year. Asked if he had made a pact with the White House Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, who had also announced his resignation today, the PMOS said no. He acknowledged the timing of the two announcements was ’seriously spooky’. He said that the reason he was planning to leave was because he had spent the last eight years working in Downing Street. He had done at least half the briefings for the last four years every week. It was a fantastic job, but it was also very demanding and not something that anyone could do forever. He said that he had given it a lot of thought and had felt that the time had come for him to do something different. He added that it had been 100% his decision to leave. There was no drama or mystery behind it. As to what he planned to do next, the answer was he didn’t yet know at this stage. He might remain in the Civil Service or he might look outside. His reason for making his announcement today was the fact that he would have to speak to people to find another job, which he hadn’t done yet. And nor had anyone approached him about another job. But he did not want the fact that he was looking to leave to leak out - only for people to put all sorts of constructs on it that were completely untrue. That was why he was being upfront about it today and telling all the Lobby at once.
The Lobby Chairman thanked the PMOS for sharing his announcement with the journalists. Speaking on behalf of the entire Lobby he said that they had very much appreciated his presence and contribution to the daily briefings over the years in the highest traditions of the Civil Service and the GICS. The PMOS said that for the record, it had been a great honour and privilege to do the job. He had huge professional and personal respect for the Prime Minister. The times he had had in Downing Street had been fantastic - give or take the odd briefing here and there. He had also made some great friends among the Lobby and valued the way he had been treated by them. At the end of the briefing, the Lobby gave the PMOS a standing ovation.
delicious
digg
facebook
