Downing Street Says » European Constitution

Asked to clarify the situation should the Government still be in power at the time of the referendum and the result of the vote was ‘no’, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that as a Civil Servant he was unable to comment on party political matters. However, were a referendum to take place, the Government would obviously set out to win it. It was important to recognise that we would only agree to the Constitution if it met our red lines. Therefore, if the proper issues were put to the electorate in a detailed way after having gone through the process of Parliamentary scrutiny, the Government believed it would win. That said, the vote would obviously depend on circumstances at the time which no one could possibly predict in the here and now. He pointed out that a no vote would also place this country in a difficult position because we would have to convince the other twenty-four European member states to agree to our changes to the Constitution, which would be very complex to do. Asked if it would be ‘conceivable’ that the Government would have to renegotiate Britain’s basic membership of the EU in the event of a no vote, the PMOS said that no one should underestimate the difficulty of convincing twenty-four other countries to accept changes to a Constitution to which they had agreed – and, indeed, to which we would only have agreed in the first place because we believed that it respected our red lines. Asked if that meant that the Treaty would be effectively non-amendable when it was debated in Parliament, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had dealt with this issue in the House today. The Constitution would be debated in the same way that other EU Treaties, such as Maastricht, had been debated in the past. In this case, however, it would be open to proper scrutiny to enable the public to obtain a much deeper understanding of the issues involved and the reality of what had been agreed, rather than the myths. The vox pops yesterday showed that most people did not have a deep knowledge of the issues relating to the European Constitution. The Parliamentary scrutiny process would change that. Pressed as to whether the remaining twenty-four EU members states would have to renegotiate the Constitution were any changes to be made by the British Parliament, the PMOS said that any changes to a Treaty which had been agreed by EU member states would obviously have to be renegotiated. That was common sense.

Put to him that Downing Street did not, in fact, have any idea what the implications of a no vote would be, the PMOS said that he would disagree. He pointed out that it was impossible to know today the precise circumstances in which a no vote might occur. Besides, people should not get fixated by the prospect of a no vote because the Government was determined to win the argument in the country. Put to him that the Government must have discussed the implications of not winning the referendum, the PMOS repeated that Britain would be faced with the prospect of having to convince twenty-four other countries to agree to any changes. That would be the Government’s starting point. Questioned as to whether the Government would effectively hold a pistol to the head of the public and warn them to vote yes or else, or whether a second referendum might be held after modest changes were made to the Constitution were a no vote to occur, the PMOS said that both hypothetical scenarios showed that no one could be sure of the precise circumstances in which we might find ourselves at the time of the referendum because of the number of variables involved. Asked if he was alluding to the fact that other EU countries might also vote no – in which case the Treaty would have to be renegotiated in any event, the PMOS said no. He was simply making the point there were a number of possible scenarios. That was why it was fruitless to engage in a hypothetical discussion at this stage.

Asked if the Government would try to convince the other twenty-four EU member states of any changes were a no vote to occur in the light of the fact that Harold Wilson had done something similar in 1975, the PMOS pointed out that the membership of the EU in 1975 was smaller than it would be after 1 May 2004. That was a very relevant point.

Asked if it would be legally possible to hold a second referendum on the same question in the UK, the PMOS said that he was not a legal expert and was therefore not going to attempt to answer the question. The Government’s position on the EU Constitution had not changed. Firstly, it had to be agreed. Secondly, it had to meet our red lines. Thirdly, it would have be turned into a legal document and translated into English. Fourthly, it would be subjected to our Parliamentary processes. Finally, it would go to a referendum, which the Government would set out to win.

Asked how many pieces of legislation would be required to set up the referendum, the PMOS said that these were issues which would be resolved and announced at the appropriate time. The important point was not the process. Rather, it was the substance of the argument about what was actually contained in the Constitution. The Prime Minister had believed it was right for him to clear up the question of a referendum today because of the concern that the debate was focussing on that issue, rather than the detail of the Constitution. Put to him that the Prime Minister was trying to turn the whole issue into a debate about being in Europe or out, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had told the House today, there were clear implications about our future in Europe. Consequently, the debate should not be about the myths which had been perpetrated, but should focus instead on the detail of the Constitution. The implications would also include the fact that any changes would need to be agreed by the twenty-four other member states. That was what made reaching agreement in June so difficult. However, were that to be achieved, the Government believed that it would be an important step. Asked to clarify the ‘clear implications’ about our future in Europe, the PMOS said that he was referring to factors such as how influential the UK would be, how much we were seen to be at the centre of the debate within Europe or whether we were considered to be fighting our own corner on our own.

Asked if the Prime Minister’s call for battle to commence was an indication that an organisation would be set up to mount a campaign for the yes vote, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had simply been underlining the fact that people should begin dealing with the substance of the issue, rather than focus on the processology.

Asked again why Parliamentary scrutiny should take place before the matter was put to the general public when the opposite had occurred regarding Scottish devolution, the PMOS said that the EU Constitution was a very complex document. There was a variety of myths and misconceptions about it. It was therefore entirely right for Parliament to be given the time and space to scrutinise it in detail so that the public would be able to see that and make their own judgements. It was also important to remember that issues like Scottish and Welsh devolution had been debated for many years, whereas the EU Constitution had not – in addition to which, more to the point, it had not yet even been agreed. Asked if he was suggesting that the general public was not clever enough to work out the complexities of the document for themselves, the PMOS said that the vox pops carried out yesterday illustrated the fact that people, by their own admission, were not knowledgeable about the Constitution. That was why it would be of benefit to everybody to have proper Parliamentary scrutiny of the document once it had been agreed. Asked why the EU Constitution couldn’t be set out as simply as the US Constitution for example, the PMOS said that it was important to be clear about the merits of the EU Constitution. It would introduce a coherence into the way in which the EU operated which would be vital for an EU at twenty-five. It introduced ideas, such as the Presidency of the Council, which would reinforce the position of national states. It would enforce the idea that national Parliaments would be able to question decisions taken by the European Commission. No one would expect members of the public, journalists or even the PMOS himself to read every single page of the document and understand every single clause. However, the broad outlines were ones which could, over a period time, be delineated and argued for.

Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with Tony Benn’s suggestion that Cabinet Ministers should be allowed to campaign for whichever side of the argument they believed was right, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had set out the position in the Commons today when he had talked about the Government’s position. Asked if the referendum campaign would continue even if another country voted no, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister’s words in the House on that matter spoke for themselves.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

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.

» Tuesday, April 20, 2004

European Constitution

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries