Downing Street Says » European Constitution

Asked if the Prime Minister had definitely ruled out the option of a second referendum, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that as the Prime Minister had underlined this morning, he would go into a referendum with the intention of winning the campaign. Moreover, it was impossible to predict what might happen if the result was no – other than the fact that he would have to attend a meeting of the European Council to attempt to sort out the situation. Asked if he was suggesting that the door to holding a second referendum was being left ajar, the PMOS said that he wasn’t suggesting anything. He was simply making the point that it was impossible to predict what might happen if there was a no vote. One thing people could be sure, however, was that if the Prime Minister agreed to a Treaty this summer which met our red lines, he would go into the referendum campaign with the intention of winning it.

Put to him that Jack Straw today had appeared to be far more open to the possibility of some form of renegotiation with the European Council were there to be a no vote, the PMOS said he would disagree with that analysis. The Prime Minister, himself, had told journalists today that he would go to the European Council to discuss the way forward if there was a no vote. The point was that we would then be entering into unknown territory. Asked to explain what was so unknown about it in the light of the fact that he would be going back to the European Council either to renegotiate the Treaty or to discuss the option of remaining in Europe without having to sign up to it, the PMOS repeated that it was pointless speculating about what might happen when the precise circumstances at that time were impossible to predict. Put to him that he appeared to be rowing back from what the Prime Minister had said in his press conference this morning, the PMOS said that he would disagree. Journalists were obviously trying to get him to state unequivocally what would happen were there to be a no vote. However, as the Prime Minister had pointed out this morning, it was impossible to make any predictions about the situation at that stage because we would be entering into unknown territory. Put to him that there were two precedents for a no vote – the Danish rejection of the Maastricht Treaty and Ireland’s rejection of the Nice Treaty – and that we would therefore be entering into familiar territory, the PMOS said that the Danish case was different to the Irish case and both would be different to this case. As the Prime Minister had emphasised today, he was not planning to go into the campaign worrying about what might happen if there was a no vote. He would go into it with the intention of winning it.

Asked if it was correct to say that Downing Street had not ruled out the possibility of a second referendum, the PMOS said that it wasn’t his job to write journalists’ scripts for them. The Prime Minister’s words spoke for themselves. It was impossible to know precisely what the situation might be after a no vote, and he had absolutely no intention of getting drawn into a speculative discussion about it.

Asked why Downing Street and the Foreign Office were sending mixed messages about the second referendum, the PMOS said that he would disagree with the premise of the question. He was making the very obvious point that it was impossible to predict the precise situation in which we might find ourselves were there to be a no vote. Put to him that the Prime Minister had ‘predicted’ clearly today that there would not be a second referendum, the PMOS said the Prime Minister had been making the point that he would respect the vote of the people and that, if they voted in the negative, he would go back to the European Council. Other than that, it was impossible to predict anything else.

Put to him that a no vote would be a strong indication that the public did not want a European Constitution at all, the PMOS pointed out that the post-December position, where an agreement on the Constitution 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 and would put us in a serious and difficult position.

Asked if the UK would remain a member of the EU even if the Treaty was not signed, the PMOS said that this was a situation which would clearly evolve. However, it would be pointless to hypothesise about it because there were so many variables. The important thing was to recognise that if the UK was the only EU member not to sign up to the Constitution, it would put us in a very difficult position in political terms.

Put to him that Jack Straw had appeared to suggest this morning that there might not even be a referendum in any event, the PMOS reminded journalists that, as the Prime Minister had told the Commons this week, people should not get ahead of themselves in terms of predicting a positive outcome. The Poles still held firm to their position on vote weighting. Other countries also had their views. At the same time, however, we recognised that the Irish Presidency had injected new momentum into the process. We welcomed the prospect of trying to get agreement on the Constitution in June. Were agreement to be reached, we would be enthusiastic about selling the product. That was why we were taking the approach we were taking. Asked if the Prime Minister would hold a referendum on the Treaty irrespective of whether all other EU countries agreed to it, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had dealt with this issue in the House this week. The answer was yes. If he agreed to the Constitution, he was prepared to argue the case on its merits – not its processes. This would include highlighting the UK’s role in playing a central part in the future of Europe.

Asked if the Prime Minister would be prepared to ‘pull the whole Constitution down’ if it failed to meet our red lines in the summer, the PMOS said he did not think it was helpful to engage in hypothetical discussions at this stage. The Prime Minister had said repeatedly that the Treaty must reflect and respect the UK’s red lines. That was the bottom line.

Questioned about Parliament’s scrutiny of the Treaty, the PMOS said that the document would be treated in exactly the same way as other European Treaties in the past. The precise details would be announced when Parliament was ready to do so. Of course, this all depended on the fact that the Prime Minister agreed the Constitution in the first place.

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.

» Thursday, April 22, 2004

European Constitution

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries