11 December 2003
Negotiations on a constitutional treaty for the European Union should strike the right balance between the nations and the Union, Jack Straw has said.
"We want a treaty which makes the European Union work more effectively, but neither we nor our partners are seeking an agreement for the sake of agreement. Other member states too have their concerns which have to be addressed. We have made some progress, but there is still a lot of hard negotiating to be done."
The Foreign Secretary was briefing journalists on the Europan Council meeting this weekend in Brussels. Read the transcript of the briefing below.
Foreign Secretary:
Good Morning. The European Union is a union of sovereign nations. Our aim in Brussels over this weekend is to achieve in these treaty negotiations the right balance between the nations and the Union, and we are working for a sensible course between those who want too much Europe and those who want too little.
Each is against our interests. The origin of this Intergovernmental Conference is the enlargement of the European Union to take in 10 new members. This has been a major foreign policy objective for Britain and throughout our aim has been a stronger Britain in a wider Europe, making an enlarged Union more efficient and better able to deliver what our citizens want on trade, jobs, security, environment and asylum. And in this negotiation, long running negotiation, we have made the running from the start, being positive, putting forward creative ideas to help shape our kind of Europe. Our constructive approach has earned us the right to argue firmly for the kind of treaty which we want and which meets our concerns, and this is a chance to establish more clearly a division of powers with which the British public can be comfortable.
Europe is not a threat, it is an enormous opportunity for a confident dynamic Britain to strengthen its security and its prosperity. The Eurosceptic narrative of betrayal is profoundly defeatist and it is totally against the national interest. The EU is not a superstate, and it is not going to become a superstate; it is the nations of Europe making the most of their common strengths whilst preserving their sovereignty and their varied identities.
The nation must retain basic responsibilities, for example in the fields of the economy, foreign and defence policy and justice. But think of the European single market, the biggest in the world, and you can see how much stronger we are for sharing sovereignty where it is in our interests to do so.
So our approach is committed, but practical. We want a treaty which makes the European Union work more effectively, but neither we nor our partners are seeking an agreement for the sake of agreement. Other member states too have their concerns which have to be addressed. We have made some progress, but there is still a lot of hard negotiating to be done.
Question:
Foreign Secretary, can I ask you first of all to confirm that the red lines that we have been talking about are still there, still as red, still in the same places as they were a few weeks ago? And secondly, very generally what you think the chances of reaching agreement this weekend really are?
Foreign Secretary:
The position of the government was stated in the White Paper we published in September, and that remains the position of the government. That will come as no surprise to you. In terms of what is going to happen this weekend, I am not putting any money on it, let’s put it that way. I have often said about negotiations, sometimes from a rather variegated sets of position they come together and gel, sometimes you think they are going to gel and they don’t, and I will tell you for certain when the weekend is over.
Question:
On a specific, in terms of the debate between Poland and Germany, how far are we prepared to go to back the Poles over the voting system and their preference for staying with the existing system? And on a more general question, what do you say to those, some of whom are within your own party, that it doesn’t matter about your red lines because in essence power is shifting away from national governments?
Foreign Secretary:
On the position on the voting system, what we spelt out on page 33 of the White Paper is this, and it is important and it has been a consistent position of ours, which is the government remains content with the Nice system of voting. For all its complications, it was the product of lengthy negotiations and agreed as part of a broader package. But we will consider any new proposal on its merits, looking for a balance between the ease with which legislation can be passed and can be blocked, and that remains the case. Obviously we want a solution to this problem. It is not a red line for the United Kingdom, but we recognise the profound concerns of some of our partners on both sides of the argument. And the other point, which I think has been missed quite a lot in the debate about the voting systems, is that in any event, under the terms of the draft treaty, the Nice system of voting will remain in force until 31 October 2009.
Question:
Inaudible.
Foreign Secretary:
The issue is what then happens, that is provided in the draft treaty and no-one has proposed any amendment to that. So everybody is agreed, at 25, that the Nice system of voting will remain in force until 31 October 2009. The question is what system of voting should apply after that, and obviously those who want a change in the voting system would like that pinned down over this weekend, or whenever this set of negotiations are concluded. Those who don’t want to change, equally don’t want it pinned down, and then there are those who are seeking some accommodation for this - and I am on record as saying that I think there is some merit in this - talking about a rendezvous clause, and the question then is would it be before 2009 or would it be thereafter. Now on your second point, which is what has happened to the balance of power in the Nice proposals, assuming we get a satisfactory conclusion from the United Kingdom’s point of view. Well I think I can best answer that by quoting what the House of Lords European Union Committee has now said twice in respect of this, once in May and once much more recently, and it said that it is clear that the balance of power in the European Union is going to shift, they then said from the Commission in favour of the member states, if the convention’s proposals are adopted. And one of the areas on which we, the United Kingdom, have been able to gain agreement, and we have been in the lead on this from the start, is in establishing a much stronger role for the European Council, which represents sovereign nation states, by having a full time President of the European Council, with staff, able to not only ensure that an agenda for the European Union is set, but it is worked through and the Commission then deliver it. And then there are other aspects in the draft which include the new subsidiarity arrangements, and indeed provisions in Part 1 which enable shared competencies to be handed back to member states, which if we are determined and imaginative about, will certainly reinforce the conclusion of the House of Lords European Union Committee.
Question:
Does it really matter if we get this constitution or not? As you yourself have said, the European Union will carry on with the old arrangements anyway.
Foreign Secretary:
Well it does matter, yes. I have always made it clear, and of course it is a matter of fact, the European Union will carry on under the old arrangements. Our objection to the old arrangements is that they will not properly be able to cope with the European Union at 25 because the institutions were designed for a Union of 6. Let me give you just one example. Having a rotating Presidency, with the Presidency changing ever 6 months, made sense when there were 6 member states, because you have the Presidency once every three years, and that meant that you had experience and continuity. Now at 25, if we keep to the existing system, a member state will only have the Presidency once every twelve and a half years, and what that means, if we have the status quo, is that the influence and initiative will inevitably shift more towards the Commission and away from member states, not because of anything that is written down, but because that will be the natural result of not having a clear focus of authority of sovereign nation states, able to deliver on the agenda, which would be, and will be if we get it, in the full time Presidency. So that is just one example of many.
Question:
As you will know, Foreign Secretary, in the Foreign Office there are deep misgivings at senior levels about the erosion of sovereignty over foreign policy, and in your old department at the Home Office over criminal justice, not to mention the Treasury and so on. Can you disagree with Sir Stephen Wall’s advice to the Prime Minister that his refusal to offer a referendum on these sweeping changes is unsustainable?
Foreign Secretary:
I certainly have never seen any such advice, let me make that clear. Secondly, let me also say we have set our position so far as defence, justice and home affairs, taxation and foreign policy, very clearly in this White Paper and we aim to achieve our objectives. And if we do, then what we will see is that this convention text, far from establishing any kind of federal superstate of fantasy, will actually help to strengthen the role of nation states, and that is just true.
And the second thing about this convention text, and it has been spelt out time and again by those who have been involved in previous negotiations, is that on any basis whatsoever, the changes involved in this text tells us the balance of power between nation states and Europe are much less significant than those in Maastricht - which the Conservatives voted against a referendum, including Michael Howard and Michael Ancram - or, for example in the Single European Act in 1986, which established the idea of QMV and the single market.
Question:
I notice you say that you have not seen the advice from Sir Stephen Wall, it was verbal advice to the Prime Minister. Are you saying that you have never heard such advice either?
Foreign Secretary:
Well I will say this, and I don’t normally talk about advice that Stephen Wall has given, I have never heard such advice either, and our position on the referendum is very clear and it is spelt out in the White Paper as well, and that is this, that you have a referendum for example on the euro, or for example whether we were to stay in or to leave the European Union, where the issues is do you join or leave an institution, or is there involved in this decision a major constitutional issue, as there would obviously be with losing our own currency, as well as the economic aspects of the euro. What we are talking about here, however, is an amendment to existing treaties, which as the House of Lords Committee themselves have said, an amendment to existing treaties, that is the practice of it, and a consolidation of the existing treaties which are spread over a number of almost incomprehensible texts, and the net result of this, add it all up together, and it is the House of Lords all party committee, and not me, saying this, is that the balance of power is likely to shift from the central Union, as it were, to member states. There is no case for having a referendum and that too has been spelt out very eloquently by for example Kenneth Clarke, former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Question:
Do you like the idea, or can you rule out the idea of having a referendum on the euro on the day of the next general election, now that it is an option?
Foreign Secretary:
I know you asked at the earlier part of this Lobby briefing Godric that question. You know the position on the euro, which was spelt out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27 October 1997 and 9 June of this year, and the position remains unchanged. We set five tests. When and if they are satisfied, a recommendation made by the Chancellor to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet if they agree to Parliament, to have a referendum and that date is to be decided.
Question:
Inaudible.
Foreign Secretary:
I am not going to get into speculation about that. As I say, the crucial thing is that it depends on the satisfaction of these five tests.
Question:
The Russian election, the strengthening of our nationalist party and the weakening of pro-western parties, how could it influence British policy towards Moscow, and also the process for European enlargement?
Foreign Secretary:
We have enjoyed good and constructive relationships with the Russian Federation and those continue, and President Putin’s position, as everyone knows, has been reinforced by the results of the Duma election, and I know that the British Prime Minister had a very good conversation with President Putin I think just two days ago and offered his congratulations to President Putin on the result of those elections. So I look forward to those constructive relationships continuing.
Question:
Now that the regime in Tehran has given its go ahead to sign the additional protocol, will the UK assist Iran in developing its nuclear programme, as it hopes? And number two, since you signed the optional protocol to the UN Convention on Human Rights yesterday, and you also stated that freedom from torture is a fundamental human right, at what stage do you envisage using the same kind of vigour and determination to pursue democracy and human rights in Iran, as you did in curbing the WMD programme?
Foreign Secretary:
Look, what we are doing on Iran is following an agreed European foreign policy, and it is a good illustration of where sovereign nation states are perfectly entitled to run their own separate foreign policy, as they are now, and will be, under any conceivable constitutional treaty, can work better coming together with a common position, as we have done in the European Union and then have three of the major countries - France, Germany and ourselves - seeking to implement it. We have effectively agreed through the European Union, through the discussions we had in Tehran on 20 October, and in the IAEA Board on 26 November, an agenda with Iran in respect of the nuclear dossier, and separately discussions over human rights and trade and cooperation, and we keep those under review, as we did at the lunch of Foreign Ministers on Monday.
Question:
The latest Italian treaty draft refers to the use of an emergency brake procedure in several areas where QMV would apply and which apply to our red lines. Could you explain what it is and what your view is on this as a solution to the QMV problem?
Foreign Secretary:
It is called an emergency brake, it amounts to the provision for the veto to be taken at the European Council level, so that you would have an opportunity laid down in the draft treaty by which if any member state was unhappy with a decision being taken by QMV in the relevant Council of Ministers, it could insist on the matter being referred to the European Council for Heads of State and Government, and the result of that referral alone would be to block a decision in the Council of Ministers, and then it would either stay blocked, or if there was agreement unanimously in the European Council, then it could be unblocked or it could be referred back to the Commission. We are examining the detailed text, you will be aware that we only received it - the English translation - yesterday morning, but it amounts to unanimity because it does provide unanimity. I hope that is helpful by way of an explanation.
Question:
Could you just say, you have got the red lines, but other areas, the charter, energy, what other areas of concern do we have in these negotiations over the weekend?
Foreign Secretary:
George, if you want to see what our overall position is, it is as set out in the White Paper, and we took a lot of trouble with the White Paper. Paragraph 66, which I was about to turn up, sets out the positions on unanimity. It says: we insist that unanimity will remain for treaty change and in other areas of vital national interest, such as tax, social security, defence, key areas of criminal procedural law, and the system of own resources, and unanimity must remain the general rule for common foreign and security policy. As far as energy is concerned, that has been the subject of a lot of discussion, by myself with colleagues in the Italian Presidency, and I was joined by my then colleague, the Dutch Foreign Minister, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, we wrote collectively to the Italian Presidency.
The result of that is in this latest set of drafts, changes in the energy provisions, which I am told are satisfactory to our energy producers and to those in the Netherlands.
Question:
… the charter?
Foreign Secretary:
In the charter, we have gone a very long way on the charter. We now have provision in the draft that came from the Presidency yesterday morning for the explanations, which are explaining the legal base of the charter, to be referred to in the draft treaty and then published in the journal of the European Union. We are looking at whether that is satisfactory, and you will recall that we already have a number of horizontal articles, which are to be found in paragraph 251 and other paragraphs, which set out very clearly that "the charter does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union, or establish any new powers or tasks for the Union, or modify powers and tasks defined in other parts of the constitution." So there is already very substantial protection for what people were understandably anxious about, and we are looking at whether what is already there, taken with this latest provision, is satisfactory.
Question:
Do you think we are witnessing just the regular level of eve of summit bickering, or is the Prime Minister really about to go into the mother of all battles?
Foreign Secretary:
I wouldn’t put it either that way. There has been no bickering, the atmosphere in the room has actually been very constructive, but the truth is different countries have different perspectives on this. And if you take the issue of voting systems, Poland has one perspective, which was that it was involved in a hard fought negotiation, it came out with a voting weight in that negotiation, that that was the basis on which they went into their own negotiations for formal entry to the European Union, and it is difficult for them to change. On the other side, you have Germany saying yes we did in the end agree to what was decided at Nice, but this convention was an opportunity to look again at that. People in Germany think from their point of view it is not fair because they have such a large population compared to any other member state, but only two more votes than Poland or Spain. So these are different perspectives and we have to try and square these circles. Now we will see, this can only be understood backwards I think.
Question:
Has Britain, the … of, what is it called, the international coalition in Iraq, consulted regarding the Pentagon plan banning some German or French companies from doing business in Iraq? Secondly, there is much talking in the United States regarding democracy in the Middle East, is Britain still ready to go with the United States to achieve this democracy, whatever the way they are going to?
Foreign Secretary:
On the first point, decisions about how any country spends its tax revenue are decisions for that country, and the United States Congress is fully entitled to say that tax dollars there should be spent in one way, and in this particular case on contracts limited to those active allies in Iraq, rather than in another way. Have there been detailed discussions about that? We have talked to them about it, but the decision was them, not ours. On your second point, the whole of I think the world, and this includes the European Union, is agreed on the importance of developing democracy and political institutions in the Arab world and our agenda is actually one set by Arab intellectuals in the two reports from the United Nations Development Programme.
Question:
Actually it is a related question, because I was just wondering what you thought of the potentially divisive impact in Europe at a time when you are not putting money on the IGC being able to reach a consensus, of the decision to exclude Germany and the other old Europeans from the contract bidding?
Foreign Secretary:
I can’t believe it is unexpected and I don’t believe that it will be divisive in the way you suggest.
delicious
digg
facebook
