No certainties
The German leader, Angela Merkel is making her first during Gordon Brown's premiership. (You might remember it's not the first time they have met as leaders - Gordon Brown raised a few eyebrows by choosing to go first to Berlin as PM, rather than across the pond to visit George W Bush).
I'm told the two leaders are discussing health matters in the developing world. But what is not officially on the agenda, and what at the beginning of the summer Gordon Brown didn't really fancy talking about either, is the draft EU reform treaty.
As we reported on the Ten O'Clock News a few weeks ago, the Conservatives claim it is literally a 'cut and paste job' of the former EU constitution. Yes, the one Tony Blair a referendum on. But it never got to that, because French and Dutch voters threw it out so EU leaders had to go back to the drawing board coming up with the draft that was agreed in June.
Gordon Brown and his ministers still insist there doesn't need to be a referendum because the new treaty is substantively different to the constitution. Their case isn't helped though by the succession of prominent EU bigwigs who have queued up to point out just how similar the documents are.
Emboldened by this, the Conservatives are keeping their foot on the gas, demanding again today that a public vote go ahead.
And now, Gordon Brown faces similar demands from the left. Four unions are tabling motions at the upcoming TUC conference for a referendum to take place, although this isn't so much about the referendum as political tactics.
The RMT, Unite, Unison and the GMB's desire is to push the government into opting in to the charter of fundamental rights. The TUC as a whole hasn't yet made its mind up on taking a position on this. But union whispers tell me there are plenty in the movement who want to make as much noise about this as possible to force Gordon Brown's hand. If they got what they wanted on that, unlikely I suspect, their demands for a referendum might miraculously disappear.
But the PM, who after all, said he wanted a new style of government, with more consultation of 'the people', could face a tough break explaining to critics on the left and the right who are ramping up their demands for the public to be allowed a say.
With critics on both political sides pressing hard in this debate, it can't be that comfortable in the middle.
PS. I'm about to leave Westminster for the probably-not-sunnier climes of the Highlands. As I do so, it's interesting to note that the issue at stake today is one on almost the first day of the summer.
Blogging activity will resume in early September on Nick's return. If you'd like to read an archive of my posts, click here.
I'm 
Comments
The European Union constitution? Huh, that old chestnut. It's another mountain being made out of a molehill. People are squabbling and anxious, and creating another attention bubble. The usual shrill voices and cries of alarm trot out like clockwork. It all looks very baffling and difficult but that's only because people are working themselves up into a frenzy.
The hard-left and hard-right are like telegraph poles, with the majority strung in between like a slumped wire. The alarm and panic just pulls the middle ground down like a sunk cake. If Gordon Brown can deal with the separate extremes he'll end up boxing them in like Cicero and Brutus, cross the political Rubicon, and return Rome to the people.
It looks hard but no is challenge for a Caesar.
It is a bit hard for this effectively disenfranchised Englishman to get too excited about the EU.
It just seems rather remote and unbalanced, democractically speaking, in that the EU Commission appears to have far to much power for an unelected body.
But how can we English complain when we put up with several hundred Quango's?
I suppose that if we were to draw a heirarchy of political relationships, assuming you are English, it might look something like this :
1. Citizen of the World.
2. Citizen of the European Union.
3. Citizen of England.
4. Citizen of a County.
5. Citizen of a metropolitan area/city/town/village.
If the dictum 'all politics is local' is true, then many people will consider that level (5 above) to be the most important in their lives.
Whatever, the crucial point is that the appropriate things are done at the correct level.
This is what so many of the arguments about who does what actually boil down to.
So, for instance, the hugely expensive funding of a new fighter aircraft or nuclear submarine should clearly be done at the EU level, not national level.
A lot of what the EU is trying to do is harmonise across member contries for the mutual benefit of its citizens, for example the recent MIFID directive, which should bring Europe based banks into more direct competition with England based banks, hopefully to benefit the comsumer, via increased competition.
Fundamentally, I think professional politicians have done a very poor job so far, of explaining why 'being in Europe' could be of great benefit to us English.
It doesn't sit easily with Brown's claim to want to see a change in style of government, especially if he intends to press ahead with road charging as well. Let us not forget, 2 million people signed that petition.
People might start to think he's no different to Blair, and then Brown might start to find himself in a fair deal of trouble.
The Reform Treaty, which is not yet finalised, is a fraction of the length of the rejected constitution.
The UK has various opt outs from parts which apply to countries whose leaders say the new treaty is alike to the old constitution - for them it is!
There are 3 main categories of people demanding a referendum (How many of them wanted one over Maastricht, a far more critical moment in our history?).
1 Those who want out of the European Union regardless of the reform treaty.
2 Those who seek to embarrass HMG for their own largely unconnected reasons - Conservative Party, Trades Unions who see this as a bargaining counter, Crypto Trotskyistes (inc those who wish they had been Trots in the halcyon days of circa 1975), some at least of the Guardian & ±«Óătv jorrnalists who oppose Labour Governments no matter what they do etc.
3) Those who like elections, disputes etc, inc professional journalists who have a living to make.
The Scunner Salmond will plan his way on the issue you can be sure.
Mr and Mrs Av Brit just wish they could get a better exchange rate for their euros etc . . .
why am i refused a blog
Yawn, yawn, yawn. Doesn't the Conservative party realise that Europe is not at the top of most people's political agendas, even if it is for them. I think this treaty ,or constitution if you will, and its contents cannot be changed and it is going ahead regardless of what the Tories or the unions think. Whether when you read between the lines you think that it's good or bad for Britain.....it's hardly been designed to cause consternation. Indeed the treaty is designed to benefit every European. e.g the creation of an EU High Foreign Representative. Perhaps this position was created in order to prevent sovereign governments i.e Blair's, from making such dire mistakes......such as Iraq.
Thank you for your blogging, I will say again I like your style which is fair and succint, but the reader always goes away thinking they know the full story.
Laura,
You're off?
Although I've disagreed with your reporting it's been a pleasure to read your posts.
Hopefully you can go back to where you should be as co host of the Daily Politics.
It's time we opted out of the EU as we seam to do nothing but pay into it, and it has the power to invoke fines on our country whenever it likes; It's nothing but an expensive headache. It's coming to something when Britain 'an Island' can't find landfill sights when we need to reclame land in flood areas. The government has been looking at a series of measures to meet EU landfill targets, which DEMAND a 25% reduction on 1995 levels by 2010 and a 65% cut by 2020.
So why do we need a government? when another country can DEMAND that we obay them with a threat of fines of up to Ć3billion. If G.Brown wants to get the public to have more involvement with government, then our first duty to our country should be 'GET RID OF THIS BURDEN CALLED THE EOROPEAN UNION, AND GOVEN OURSELVES'.
While I agree with John Constable's sentiments, they are made even more forceful by noting that if you are British, citizenship stops at the EU and thereafter one is merely a "subject" thanks to the UK's lack of written constitution. The Tories and Eurosceptics would have it ever so.
It is clear that Brown will win the vote in Parliament because of the poodles who represent us but the problem is that his reputation will take a nosedive as the PM who was not able to have enough confidence in the correctness of his belief that the EU treaty is good for Britain to risk asking the electorate.
The EU has been a disaster for this country but Brown doesnt want to know.
Just noticed that bit about Laura zipping off. I did have issues with her reporting. It was a bit paint by numbers and hysterical for me but it's easy to complain. After a slow start and a wobble she strengthened towards the end. Knocking out a good report and dealing with some of the more robust comments isn't easy. Banking the achievements, learning from mistakes, and keeping up forward momentum is useful.
Laura's last topic on Wendy Alexander was insightful. Like Alex Salmond, Nick was a tough act to follow. He had a good nose for the issue and plenty of charm to wow the crowd. No workmanlike effort was ever going to live up to that. However, the sort of approach Wendy Alexander took and advocated in her speech is exactly the sort of thing that will help her slipstream Nick and go for pole position next time around.
We've got Brown bouncing and Wendy winning. Next, Laura leaping?
It's not the content of the treaty that differs from the constitution, but the UK "opt-outs". We do not need a referendum to decide what wee think about matters that won't affect us - that is if our opt-outs are real. We can decide to leave a club, but we can't force the other members to disband! The unions want a referendum in the hope that we will opt back in whereas the David Cameron Conservatives want us to vote to opt out further. If it meant we would have a detailed, informed debate about what Europe is all about, and the referendum was arranged far ahead enough for the issues to be explored thoroughly, that would be healthy. I suspect though that the press would draw the battle lines between the loony left and the nasty right, which would not get us anywhere
The problem that Brown has with the new agreement is that he has a legacy to deal with(not only from Blair but from previous politicians as well).They all said that the new agreement they were signing in their time would not have any major effect on the UK.
Everytime we have been told that,we have found that we have been duped in some way.So over the years the population have a pretty sceptical view of politicians and the EU.Brown knows that he would lose a referendum and will move heaven and earth not to have one.
After all the confusion of the last few weeks you deserve it!
Have a nice time Laura.
People are loosing sight of the real issues here. The issue is not the Constitution, but the energy agreements and capital flows in Europe. Europe is changing very quickly and the balances of power are changing accordingly. Once again Germany's interests are in the East and not in the West. While Britain has been investing heavily in China, Germany has been investing heavily in Russia so the grounds for disagreement on foreign policy are growing all the time. Russia is strengthening its links around the Caspian Sea and this includes Iran and is repositioning itself in Europe by reinforcing links with Germany. We are facing a completely new ball game.
80% of the British public want a referendum on the EU Constitution (and I use the word deliberately). A quarter of Labour voters will turn against Brown if denied a referendum.
If Brown still refuses to give us a say, I belive that this will bring down Brown and the current Labour Government
And what do you do if Brown turns around and says, 'Tough, I'm PM, I've got a majority and we don't need another election until 2010?' He won't look weak, he'll look strong, because it's not exactly an issue that's going to keep going, is it, except among those who want out of the EU anyway?
Tell me one thing the treaty is going to legislate for that you don't think is a good idea, Laura.
(Or rather, just have a good time in the Highlands, and don't forget your anti-midge spray.)
1. Gordon Brown says he wants to listen to the people.
2. His party was elected on a manifesto including a referendum on the EU consitution, most of which is included in this so-called reform treaty (as confirmed by a number of prominent EU politicians and others).
3. A referendum is the most direct way of asking the people for their views - see point no. 1 above.
4. It's quite possible that the majority of people will give an answer Gordon Brown doesn't want to hear.
5. The manifesto promise is thrown out of the window.
6. Consider point no. 1 again: is this actually true?
I hope you avoid the midges, but they are sanguine, laura . . .
What amazes me about this treaty is that if you listen to the European advocates and politicians it is about bringing Europe closer to its people, but those same individuals are desparate that the people not be asked for their opinion.
The real disgrace here is not the content of the EU treaty - it is the fact that a government can get itself elected on a manifesto which it then simply disregards. If a governemnt can do this with impunity, then what is the point of a manifesto? How do the public know what it is they are voting for? Are we supposed to treat a political party like a football team and support them loyally throughout our lives regardless of results?
Brown, who was elected like every other labour MP on a manifesto which promised a referendum, should be required by law to hold one, or else go back to the electorate in a general election saying that he would not now grant one and take his chances. To do anything else and get away with it simply confirms the view of many people that we are no longer living in a democracy.
It doesn't matter whether they are for or against the ratification of the EU treaty, everybody should demand that they are granted the referendum that they were promised. Brown's stance is laughable when considered with his so-called desire for a return to honesty and trust in politics. That didn't last too long.
The reason the Treaty is completely different to the Constitution is dreadfully simple. The Constitution was a take-it-or-leave it set of conditions, to be set fast unless the Constitution were to be revised at some future date. Many took it, some big players did not. The Treaty is a collection of clauses which are accepted or not by states provided they negotiate their opt-outs with the other members. It is therefore illogical to claim that, because most of the clauses in the Treaty are substantially the same as in the proposed Constitution, that the Treaty is a Constitution that requires a referendum. So can we now cease this sterile and nonsensical debate?
James Baring *23*, YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.
Short & sweet, but well explained!
If the Germans had had the possibility of voting on the EU "Constitution" in a referendum, it is very improbable that the thing would have been passed: too undemocratic, too unwieldy, obscure decision making processes, inflated bureaucracy, not enough power for the parliament in Strasbourg. Et cetera.
Hence, a referendum in Britain is being regarded by many over here as a sort of a surrogate for something denied to them.
It is simple: Labour promised a referendum before the last election. Unless Mr Brown can demonstrate factually that this new document is not the constitution with a new name he must (even legally?) agree to have a referendum.
I have not seen any facts from Mr Brown on why it is not the constitution...only statements that it is not. Also, why is it that the pro EU people are so afraid of asking the people? They are always talking about lack of understanding and "debate"...what could be a clearer way of debate that all of us listening and then voting. The Conservatives were wrong in also not ashing the people to vote on fundamental changes to the way we are governed..so the argument of "we do not have referendums on treaties" is spurious and just a tactic to avoid asking the people of this country how they want to be governed.
But surely the big mystery is the dog which didn't bark any of the nights.
Tick as applicable:
Why is Angela M too busy to pass the time of day with David C?
Is it that Cameron does not feel the urge to visit the neighbours?
Merkel doesn't feel the need to touch base with her fellow conservative?
Cameron does not need a German view of the EU Reform Treaty?
Cameron is so afraid of the European issue he dare not be seen in her company?
The Tories are not forgiven for leaving EPP-ED?
Because "health matters in the developing world" (the reason given fror the Downing Street meeting) is not on the Leader of the Opposition's agenda?
Because she doesn't like his after-shave?
Because Angela has discounted any chance of Dave becoming important?
If you can't vote that says it all! they can call it what they like, but in my book its undemocratic.
If most of the Rwandan Parliament didn't want to hear MacCamaroon's views for which he left his flooded constituency here to give them it is unlikely that the Head Honchess of Germany would trouble to take tea with him surely?
Blair wil probably be round some time, so she has no need of an innapropiate, innadequate, self confessed substitute.
John Constable - Post 2
I suppose if you have a Eurocentric, liberal-left view of the world, your political heirarchy might make sense. But for the rest of us what about:
1. Member of the human race
2. Partner in the Commonwealth
3. Part of the Anglo-sphere
4. Subject of the the Monarch
5. Local resident
Funny, I don't see the EU in there? Nor do I see the offensive term "Citizen".
As for large military projects: well we've had our fingers burnt in the past having Germany as a partner (Eurofighter) so quite sensibly we are now collaborating with our real military allies, the USA (JSF).
MIFID is the Franco/German attempt to enasculate the British financial services sector, for their benefit, not ours. In fact, any time the EU acts collectively, it seems to be the British that suffer and the mainland Europeans that benefit (Open Skies).
If you or anyone else can think of any occasion wher the UK has benefitted at the expense of France, I would be very interested to hear about it.
It makes more $ense for Mr. Brown to cultivate good relations with the Germans and other neighbors. This is certainly better than aligning too closely with Amerikans, an empire $low-lie burning into bankruptcy and civil unrest.
Nonetheless... I'd be cautious if I was Mr. Brown, especially in regards to the European constitution. Indeed! Beware the $heep in wolf's clothing.
Hi Nick
Its very clear the EU is important to those who want it. New Labour. So why is it so important that its been done so underhandedly and over many years silently creeping in and taking over. Why if its so advantageous to the people arent people queing up to tell us of its virtues of its money saving and of its new laws and new society planned that will do us all good? Instead we have this creeping around point scoring mostly illegally through deceptions and lies. NOW the EU constitution is here in a disguised form even though the EU leaders are telling each other its the constitution there telling us it isnt. The EU is designed to rule without democracy.
The UK will be divided into 12 regions with their own regional assemblies.
The assemblies need the councils powers first so regional councils can be renamed joined or the regional assemblies can be made into new council authorities ITS ALL the same by a different name. What you end up with is a regional assembly by whatever name answerable to brussels.
That assembly has no power except in implementing the EU orders in which its power is limitless. The assembly has a constitution binding it legally to the EU.
The assembly is part of a group the COR The Council Of Regions. The assmblies are a talking shop only the real decisions is decided by the EU Parliament. Although they have no power. Only able to decide yes or no to what is presented to them.
The EU Commissioners decide what the parliament can discuss and have control. They are not democraticly elected and are chosen by the EU parliamnet.
Once the EU constitution is in they could decide to change the rules because there will be no fear of an election to get the EU out of power Its in power forever. The assemblies pretend to offer democracy and so does its parliament. It doesnt. The EU is full of different people and agendas many ways to rule the EU without democracy and much backhanders and corruption.
So ask yourself why do new labour really want the EU.
Its ideal was as a trading organisation instead it really wants everything. It wants to own the UK and all of europe its already centralising everything with the ability to track tax and arrest anyone of us whenever it wants.
Are we all really this stupid?
#30 Paul Holden
I did not say that the political heirarcy that I specified was cast in stone.
There must always be room for alternative views.
Looking at your own list, I find it is quite agreeable until we reach item 4. Subject of the Monarch.
I ask you, in this age of personal enlightenment, who could possible wish to be the 'subject' of somebody else, no matter how notional that might be.
As a free Englishman (I am not a PAYE serf), I totaly refuse to have anything to do with such nonsense.
Considerably smarter politicians than those that we English have elected for the last few decades, might have been more astute on our behalf and :
1. Ensured that we maintained mutually advantageous trade links with the Commonwealth, upon joining the EU.
2. Ensured that funding for hugely expensive military projects were shared equitably amongst our partners (both European and US).
3. Ensured that England, remained a valid political entity, rather than being eviscerated, without our explicit consent, into several 'regions'. The giveaway here is the total lack of popular political support amongst the English for these 'regions'.
In the end, I do not blame the politicians, we English elected them and we have got what what we deserved for our political apathy.
J Constable no 33 has obviously not seen the map, England is not on it, just the regions thereof. I think that is fairly relevant. The English would do very well if they had their own parliment, why do the Scots and the Welsh have that privilage and run thier own affairs, whilst the English are goverened by all. Something not quite right here? The regional assemblies are unelected and should not have any place in a democracy. How democratic to say you can vote on it and when they recieved a NO vote this government said 'well , you are having them anyway'.
I agree with no 30, let us see some evidence of the EU benefiting the UK in any way. Good relations with our neighbours are desireable, but not at the expense of ones own counry.
Forget a referendum on the EU constitution, what we need is what we never had before, a referendum on EUROPEAN UNION membership. As it is such a wonderful thing and of great benefit to the UK, this should be top of Gordon Brown's to do list, as part of his new style of politics.
On the latest outbreak of foot and mouth disease, it seems to me that one possibility is being overlooked, whether by government spokespersons or political commentators. That is the possibility that the foot and mouth virus is being spread by deliberate action.
How sure can we be that neither of the two organisations based at Pirbright have been infiltrated by one or more animal right activists?