Downing Street Says » European Constitution

Asked if the Prime Minister would follow the example of the Irish Government in its referendum on the Nice Treaty by holding a second referendum if the first one produced a negative result, the PMOS said it was important for people to understand that the Government would only sign up to the Constitution if it protected our red lines. Parliament would then have an opportunity to scrutinise the document in detail, after which the public would be able to make their own judgement in a referendum. Clearly, the signing of the Constitution in the first place would present a positive case for it in any referendum campaign. It would also make a positive case for engagement in Europe. That was why the Government was not focussing its attention on what might happen if it lost the vote. It was going into the referendum intending to win it. Put to him that people were entitled to know what the Prime Minister would do if there was a no vote in the light of the fact that the Prime Minister, himself, had asked the Opposition Leader this question in PMQs today, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had not ducked the issue in PMQs. He had dealt with it and had made the analogy with Ireland, as was entirely appropriate: we would sit down and discuss the way forward with our European partners. The PMOS said that he hadn’t ducked the issue either over the last couple of days, having told journalists repeatedly that a no vote would put the UK in a difficult situation because we would have to persuade the other twenty-four member states to agree to any amendments we might make. However, as he had underlined consistently, the Government’s position was that we would not enter a referendum campaign with the intention of losing it. We would focus our attention on winning it, not on what happened afterwards.

Asked if he was really suggesting that a no vote would result in the renegotiation of the existing Treaty, the PMOS said that the Government would agree to the EU Constitution if it believed it met our red lines. We would therefore go into the referendum in a positive frame of mind. Were there to be a no vote, however, the Government would still want to remain part of Europe and play a central role. That was a perfectly logical approach to take. However, no one should underestimate the difficulty of trying to persuade the other twenty-four members of the EU to agree to any of our amendments, given our position at that time. Put to him that it wouldn’t be up to the UK to persuade its twenty-four partners to agree to any amendments, but that the twenty-four would need to persuade the UK to sign up to the Treaty, the PMOS pointed out that if all members had agreed to the Constitution, they would obviously want to go ahead with it. This was clearly a multi-stage process. But was the rest of Europe going to be held up by the actions of one country? Asked if the final stage of that process would be a second referendum after the renegotiation of the Treaty with our European partners, the PMOS said that there was an obvious logic to what the Prime Minister had said in the House today about this matter. However, we were not going to be drawn into endless discussions about hypothetical scenarios, as we believed it would be a fruitless exercise.

Put to him that the Prime Minister’s analogy with Ireland, or even Denmark, was not quite accurate because the UK was much larger than both and a no vote in Britain would have more of an impact in Europe, the PMOS agreed that there were a huge number of variables to be considered. However, no one should underestimate the difficult situation in which this country would find itself if the rest of Europe were able to sign up the Constitution while we were not. Asked to clarify the analogy with Ireland in the light of the fact that the only reason why the referendum on the Nice treaty had been lost was because of a backlash against the Irish Government and a poor referendum campaign, the PMOS said that he did not entirely agree with the analysis that had been put forward. In any event, it wasn’t his job to act as a political commentator.

Put to him that the Prime Minister’s description of the issue yesterday as a ‘once and for all’ opportunity would appear to rule out the possibility of holding a second referendum, the PMOS said that if we wanted to be at the heart of Europe, we would need to ask ourselves whether we wanted to run the risk of being put in a position where the whole of Europe was in agreement on the Constitution, but we were not. It went without saying that this would put us in a very difficult situation.

Asked to spell out the serious consequences for Britain following a no vote, in the light of the fact that both Prime Minister and Jack Straw had said after the European Council last December that the EU could cope perfectly well without a new Treaty, the PMOS reminded journalists that the Prime Minister had always made it clear that while the EU could cope in the short term, in the medium to long term he believed it was in the interests of both the UK and Europe to agree a Constitution precisely because of the difficulty of having to operate in a Europe at twenty-five with a set of arrangements which had been designed for a smaller membership. The PMOS also pointed out that the post-December position, where an agreement had not been reached, would be completely and qualitatively different to the position in which we would find ourselves were twenty-four EU members to agree a Constitution, leaving the UK standing on the sidelines. That would obviously affect our relationship with the rest of Europe.

Asked for a reaction to reports that the Vice President of the European Parliament had accused the Prime Minister of domestic political expediency at the expense of the wider interests of Europe, the PMOS said that as he understood it, the Vice President had written a short sharp rebuttal to the newspaper which had reported his supposed comments.

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.

» Wednesday, April 21, 2004

European Constitution

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries