Downing Street Says » European Constitution

Asked for a reaction to today’s FT story suggesting that the Government was going to give up its red line on law and order, the PMOS said that there was no change to the text as set out in the White Paper last September which stated, “We will insist that unanimity remain for treaty change and in other areas of vital interest, such as tax, social security, defence, key areas of criminal procedural law and the system of Own Resources”. We would continue to insist that anything which was essential for our courts system could not be changed against our wishes. We would be looking for an outcome in terms of any changes in QMV which delivered higher standards for our citizens abroad without undermining our standards at home. The Irish Presidency had been in discussion with other European member states and was due to report to the European Council later this week as to how they saw the negotiations developing during the first half of this year. We were continuing to engage constructively. People were fully aware of our position. Asked if he was implying that there was no truth in the FT story whatsoever, the PMOS said he thought that setting out a consistent position in a White Paper and underlining eight months later that that position continued to hold true showed a uniformity of approach. He repeated that we would continue to insist that anything which was essential for our courts could not be changed against our wishes. As he understood it, the draft treaty stated that the adoption of minimum rules in the EU would not stop an individual country from maintaining or introducing a higher level of protection for the rights of individuals in criminal procedure.

Questioned as to whether the thinking behind some of our red lines was being re-examined, the PMOS said that the position remained as set out following the European Council last December – that the centre of gravity in respect of our red lines had been with us at Brussels. As far as we were concerned, progress had been made in our direction as a result of the discussions that had taken place. Equally, because the talks had broken down on the whole issue of vote weighting, the IGC had not concluded. The Prime Minister had acknowledged at the time that although we had made progress – which we would hope to ‘bank’ – an IGC required unanimity in every area. Clearly that had not been achieved. Until such time as it was, all issues remained open. That was a statement of fact that was very well known. But what we had said in the White Paper last September remained our position.

Asked if there was a rethink taking place following the Madrid bombings and whether it was that which lay behind the story in the FT today, the PMOS said that the Home Secretary had been clear about closer co-operation with our European partners at the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers’ meeting in Brussels last Friday. Sir John Stevens had also talked about the issue at the weekend. Closer co-operation on terrorism meant ensuring that, in dealing with a phenomenon that did not recognise national boundaries, we put in place effective practical measures. Everyone supported better co-ordination. However, it had to be better co-ordination with a practical outcome, rather than simply talking about it for its own sake. Pressed again as to whether the Madrid bombings lay behind the genesis of the FT story, the PMOS said that he wasn’t a media commentator. He was simply pointing out that the desire for closer co-operation on terrorism had been with us since before September 11. After the attacks, we had discussed the issue of European arrest warrants. He underlined that the White Paper was clear about justice and home affairs issues – we would insist on unanimity in key areas of criminal procedural law.

Asked if it remained the British Government’s position that we would veto any extension of QMV in our red line areas, the PMOS said our position was that we would hold firm to our red line areas. However, that did not mean that we were not able to engage constructively in the debate. Asked if ‘hold firm’ was a euphemism for ‘veto’, the PMOS said he appreciated why journalists wanted to get the word ‘veto’ into a story. Obviously it made the headlines more interesting. However, approaching the issue from that end was never the best way to conduct negotiations. Everyone was absolutely clear where we stood on these matters. There had been a lot of movement in our direction at the European Council last December. We would have to wait and see how things developed. If he was choosing not to use the word ‘veto’, he was doing so as it as his prerogative and a more sensible way to negotiate.

Asked if other law and order issues might be up for modification, even if our courts system was not, the PMOS said that there was a whole range of issues up for discussion at the IGC. Our position on unanimity remained as set out. It had not changed. Asked if he was indicating that no changes whatsoever were in the offing, the PMOS said that the position on the White Paper, as set out last September, had not changed. We would continue to hold true to it. Questioned as to why the Irish Government did not appear to believe that was the case, the PMOS said that he was not going to comment on every piece of news or reportage which inevitably blew in and out in the middle of a negotiation process. The formal IGC negotiations had yet to restart. The Irish Presidency would report to the European Council at the end of this week on the preliminary discussions they had had with other European countries.

1 Comment »

I want to know the irish position in some issues related to the ingoing discussion on the european constitution:
-What the irish’s stance on the issue of the common languagae that some urge the union to be mentionned on the European constitution?
-IS the Irish government agree with the statement of some European Leaders to change the name of the Union to "The unites states of europ\xEB?
Thanks for your clarification?
Comment by adil — 25 May 2004 on 6:08 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Wednesday, March 24, 2004

European Constitution

1 Comment »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries