Downing Street Says » European Constitution

Asked what action the Government would take were the result of the referendum to be a no, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that he had dealt with this matter at great length at yesterday afternoon’s press briefing. As he had underlined, it was impossible to predict the circumstances in which such a vote would take place. It was important for people to recognise that the Government would only sign up to the Constitution if it met our red lines. Parliament would then scrutinise the document, after which it would go to a public vote, which the Government fully intended to win. Asked if any contingency plans had been put in place in the event of a no vote, the PMOS said that the Government was not going to go into the referendum with the intention of losing it. 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 any changes.

Asked if the Government would fight the campaign on the basis that a yes vote would amount to a vote in favour of staying in Europe, whereas a no vote would amount to a vote in favour of leaving Europe, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had made clear yesterday, the referendum question would be about the EU Constitution. He repeated that we were not talking about an EU with a membership of six, twelve or fifteen. After 1 May 2004, the EU would comprise twenty-five member states. A no vote would therefore mean having to convince the other twenty-four of any changes. The Government would only agree to the Constitution in the first place if it met our red lines. After Parliamentary scrutiny, the public would be entitled to vote in a referendum which, he underlined again, the Government was intending to win. Asked the likelihood of all the other twenty-four EU members agreeing to our changes, the PMOS said that he was not going to get drawn into a hypothetical discussion. Put to him that he had warned journalists that such a situation would be difficult, the PMOS said that given the sheer number of people we would have to persuade, it was a statement of the obvious to say that it would be difficult.

Put to him that amending the Constitution and trying to persuade the other twenty-four EU members to accept our changes would be pointless in the light of the fact that a no vote in the referendum would have indicated the public’s wholesale rejection of it, the PMOS said that given the number of hypothetical scenarios contained in the question, he did not think it would be helpful to even attempt to answer it.

Asked to clarify the legal status of the Treaty once the Parliamentary process had concluded, the PMOS said that he was not a legal expert and referred journalists to the FCO for further details relating to the legal aspects of the case. He underlined that the sequence of events was clear. The Government would only agree to the Constitution if it respected our red lines. It would then have to be turned into a legal document and translated. That would take time. The document would then be scrutinised by Parliament, following which a referendum would be held. Asked if the document would be internationally binding after the conclusion of the Parliamentary process, the PMOS said that as he understood it, formal ratification would only take place after a referendum.

Asked if the Prime Minister regretted the initial description of the EU Constitution as a ‘tidying up exercise’, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had made clear yesterday, he had not changed his view that the Treaty in any way altered the fundamental relationship between the UK and the rest of Europe. However, he accepted that the various myths and misperceptions about it had clouded the issue. That was why we were not afraid to take part in the debate and welcomed the opportunity to do so. Asked if the description of the Constitution as a ‘tidying up exercise’ was considered to be a myth, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had detailed some of the myths about Europe in his Statement to the House yesterday. He suggested journalists had another read of it.

Put to him that by taking the decision to hold a referendum, the Government had chosen to expose the country to the risk of being forced to the sidelines – or even out – of the EU, the PMOS said that he would disagree. In the Prime Minister’s view, putting forward a pro-Europe argument and spelling out why we believed an EU Constitution was in the UK’s interests would have a positive impact because it would produce a consensus about the way forward in Europe. Therefore, rather than weakening our position in Europe, it would strengthen it because it would make us more united in terms of taking the decisions that were necessary to protect Britain’s interests in Europe and in the world generally.

Asked if Downing Street agreed with Ms Hewitt’s remarks that the gist of the debate was whether Britain should remain in the EU or not, the PMOS said that Ms Hewitt’s words spoke for themselves. The Government’s position had not changed. We believed that the EU Constitution was in the interests of the UK, as long as it protected our red lines. Moreover, the difficulty of having to persuade our twenty-four EU partners to renegotiate the Treaty and agree to our changes should not be underestimated.

3 Comments »

Michael Howard said at today’s PMQs that if the referendum produced a ‘no’ vote he would never sign up to a European constitution.

At the last test of public opinion (the general election) people voted not to have a Conservative Government – so will Michael Howard commit himself to never allowing a Conservative Government in the future?
Comment by Uncarved Block — 21 Apr 2004 on 8:51 pm | Link
What do you think?
Comment by DEGREEK — 21 Apr 2004 on 10:42 pm | Link
"the Government was not going to go into the referendum with the intention of losing it. He pointed out that a no vote would also place this country in a difficult position"

That statement – coupled with the repeated refusal to entertain hypothetical situations – seems to indicate that the referendum is given not to listen to public opinion, but as a pr exersise, with "yes" the only reasonable vote. The whole thing has an air of inevitability about it (a little like the run up to Iraq) yet I can’t help thinking the government will have to do some very fast talking to overcome the generally conservative anti-euro populace.

Unlike Iraq, and everything else, I hope Tony is right.
Comment by Lodjer — 22 Apr 2004 on 11:47 am | 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, April 21, 2004

European Constitution

3 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries