Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Euro/Peter Mandelson and Congo.
Euro/Peter Mandelson
Asked if the Prime Minister respected "in general terms" the political judgement of Peter Mandelson in the light of today’s stories, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that on this historic day he could only be glad that some traditions remained alive and vivid in terms of ye olde traditional Women’s Lobby lunch followed by ye olde traditional row over attribution. We had been here before and no doubt we would be here again in the future. The important point was that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were meeting Cabinet colleagues this week to discuss one of the most significant issues to face any Government. Only those involved knew the reality and the substance of those discussions. No one else. No doubt all sorts of people would want to contribute to the public debate by saying all sorts of different things. However, it was important to recognise that what mattered were those discussions taking place this week and the process that would lead to the announcement to Parliament on 9 June. It was inevitable that others would wish to express their own views. That was fine. But it was important not to underestimate the importance of the trilateral discussions and what would consequently happen in Parliament. That was the right and proper way to approach the issue, which both the Prime Minister and Chancellor continued to intend to do.
Asked for a reaction to Peter Mandelson’s implication that the Prime Minister was a part-time politician, the PMOS said he had no intention of getting drawn into commenting on the specifics of what reportedly had been said. Anyone who had seen the way in which the Prime Minister was approaching this issue - by working with the Chancellor and discussing matters in detail, as well as working and consulting with Cabinet colleagues - would acknowledge that this matter had been approached in the right and proper way. Asked about the length of the Prime Minister’s working day, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister worked very hard, as any journalist who had accompanied him on his trips would verify.
Asked if he would consider the Prime Minister to have a close relationship with Mr Mandelson, the PMOS said that Mr Mandelson was a backbencher. As such, he expressed his views in his own way, as was his right. Asked how often the Prime Minister and Mr Mandelson were in contact, the PMOS said that he had no intention of providing a running commentary on who the Prime Minister might or might not talk to.
Asked for a reaction to the suggestion that the Prime Minister had been ‘out-manoeuvred’ by the Chancellor, the PMOS said he thought it was more important to focus on the reality of the trilateral discussions taking place this week. There was a process to be gone through and that was precisely what we were doing. It would mean that the Treasury assessment would be circulated at some stage next week, to be followed by further discussions, a Special Cabinet on 5 June and then an announcement to Parliament on 9 June. Asked if he would be willing to say that the Prime Minister had not been ‘out-manoeuvred’, the PMOS said he would be willing to say that there was a process through which a collective decision would be taken. It went without saying that the process was both exhaustive and very thorough. Asked if the Prime Minister would agree that he had been ‘out-manoeuvred’, the PMOS said that he was not going to get drawn into giving a detailed commentary on Mr Mandelson’s reported remarks. The announcement on the Euro would be made on 9 June. Only those involved in the discussions were aware of what they were all about.
Asked if Downing Street considered Mr Mandelson unwise to have made his reported comments in the light of the fact that the debate had been stirred up again, the PMOS said that he was a spokesman for the Prime Minister, not Mr Mandelson. It was for backbenchers to decide on their own what it was they wanted to do. Put to him that Mr Mandelson had been speaking on the Prime Minister’s behalf, the PMOS said that that was certainly not the case. He had been speaking as a backbencher on his own behalf. He repeated that the important thing was what happened in the discussions taking place in Downing Street this week, the substance of which no one, apart from those involved, had any knowledge. Asked if he would agree that Mr Mandelson’s comments had been particularly unhelpful, the PMOS repeated that the important point was the trilateral discussions taking place, the substance of which only those involved had any knowledge.
Questioned as to whether his insistence that Mr Mandelson was a backbencher was an indication that he would remain one in the future, the PMOS said he believed this to be a reshuffle question to which he wouldn’t even bother giving the usual tedious response.
Asked to characterise the Prime Minister’s reaction on seeing this morning’s headlines, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister remained focus on the discussions he and the Chancellor were having with their Cabinet colleagues. He was not going to be distracted from that. Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister and Chancellor would have met with all the members of the Cabinet by the end of today, the PMOS said yes.
Asked by the Sun if the Prime Minister agreed with the Chancellor’s view expressed in his speech last night that a variety of reforms, such as CAP, were a must before we could start thinking about joining the Euro and whether the Prime Minister would make this one of the red lines in the IGC negotiations, the PMOS said that he must have read a different speech to the one read by the journalist. The Prime Minister had spoken many times about the need for reform in Europe. In terms of the Euro itself, which was a different issue, we were following the process we had set out which would lead up to the announcement to Parliament on 9 June. Until then, people would simply have to exercise a little patience.
Asked if Clare Short had been right to say today that the Prime Minister and Chancellor had already reached a decision on the Euro, and if so what the point of the trilaterals was, the PMOS said that to answer the question would take him back into territory which journalists had ventured into last week. He had set out the process last Thursday. Suffice to say that it would be followed through.
Asked if the Prime Minister and Chancellor stood by their statement last weekend in which they had said that anyone who suggested there was a split was telling an untruth, the PMOS said that the position remained as set out in the statement. There were various inaccurate caricatures of both the Prime Minister’s and Chancellor’s position. It went without saying that the Prime Minister and Chancellor were working very closely together with their Cabinet colleagues to reach a collective decision. Asked if Mr Mandelson’s caricature was inaccurate, the PMOS repeated that he was not a spokesman for Mr Mandelson.
Asked for a reaction to the statement issued today by Jon Cruddas, a former aide to the Prime Minister, who had accused Mr Mandelson of using the issue of the Euro to mount a divisive campaign against the Government, the PMOS said that how he saw the issue was the way he had effectively expressed it this morning.
Congo
Asked to confirm reports that the UK would be sending troops to the Congo, the PMOS said that we were actively engaged with our African, EU and UN partners in promoting a peaceful resolution to the problems in the region. Obviously we were concerned about the situation and were closely monitoring developments. We had asked for further detail on the proposed deployment to enable us to look at possible options for providing assistance. That was the position at this stage. Asked who had proposed the deployment, the PMOS said that the UN had asked the UK to participate in an emergency international peacekeeping force to stabilise the situation. We were not yet in a position to respond to the request because we needed further details from the UN.
delicious
digg
facebook
