Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Intelligence, Iraq, Scotland and EU Constitution
Intelligence
Asked if there was anything the Government could do to make intelligence presentations more independent of their political masters, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) replied that these were matters that were considered by the inquiries at the time after the war. There were recommendations made at that point, but these were matters that were constantly under review.
Put that one of the suggestions was to separate out the JIC role from the presentation role, so that the person overseeing putting intelligence into the public domain was not the same person who had coordinated the Intelligence Committee, the PMOS replied that there were recommendations made at the time of the Butler Inquiry, and those were being taken forward.
Asked if these changes were still happening, the PMOS replied that at the time of the Butler Inquiry we said that we would take forward the recommendations, and that had been done.
Iraq
Asked if the Chancellor had spoken to the Prime Minister today ahead of his statement in Iraq, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor talk on a regular basis but we did not give a running commentary on those discussions.
Scotland
Asked when the Prime Minister would reply to Alex Salmond on prisoner transfers, the PMOS replied that the Government would reply at the appropriate time.
Put to him that it would not necessarily be a Prime Ministerial reply, the PMOS replied that the Government would reply at the appropriate time.
Asked what we would be doing to improve relations between the Government here and the Government in Scotland, the PMOS replied by asking for an example. The journalist asked again about prisoner transfers and the PMOS gently pointed out that it was not us who had raised the issue. We kept very strictly to the legal duty in Scotland, not to go into particular cases when they were subject to a legal review. We also had on the face of the Memorandum of Understanding, that we would consult with the devolved administrations on this issue before reaching any agreement with Libya. That remained true. We had followed due process in Scotland, and also recognised the need to consult the devolved administrations in plural before reaching any agreement.
Asked if the Prime Minister had any reply to Margo McDonald’s suggestion that he should be tried for war crimes, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister and the Government had always acting according to international law.
Asked if the Prime Minister had any intention of contacting Alex Salmond before he hung up his boots on the 27th, the PMOS replied that there was still quite a long time to go.
EU Constitution
Asked if it was our position that there was no outcome that would ever require a referendum, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister has said that he believed in an amended treaty without the elements of a constitution. This was the approach that he had agreed with Prime Minister Balkenende, this was the approach he had put to Chancellor Merkel, and this is the approach that he shared with President Sarkozy. That was the ballpark in which Europe as a whole now seemed to be talking, and that was what the aim was.
Put that the logical conclusion was that we would never sign up to something that would require a referendum, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister believed that it was not just a matter of our position, you had to take into account that there had been referenda in the Netherlands and in France on the constitutional treaty that had failed. We had to get out of the mindset that we were in some way on our own on this issue. We were not. There was a willingness amongst Europe as a whole to move to a situation where the practical problems that the expansion of Europe had caused the institutions of Europe, were addressed in a practical way - without getting into the constitutional aspects of it.
Put that 17 countries in Europe had already ratified the Constitution, and asked hadn’t they got a right to say that they were in majority, the PMOS replied that that was not how Europe operated. If countries such as the Netherlands or France said "no", then you had to take account of that.
Asked if the question of an opt-out or retaining our own say on home affairs and justice was a red line issue for us, the PMOS replied that we had always said that we would not in any way surrender our ability to decide our own justice and home affairs legislation. That remained the case. On detail, we were a long way out and there was a lot of hard negotiations to come.
Put that we could not negotiate a veto, the PMOS replied that the fundamental point was that this country would retain the ability to decide its own justice and home affairs legislation.
Asked whether we would rather no new amended treaty than an amendment that went too far, the PMOS replied that changes were necessary to allow Europe to work. The Prime Minister had said that he wanted a situation where Europe could move on to addressing practical issues such as energy, climate change, and the single market for example, which allowed the EU to work to the benefit of all members. Equally, the outcome had to be acceptable to the rightful concerns of all people, including in this country. Put that otherwise immense damage could be done to the first objective, the PMOS replied that he was not going to supply the Telegraph with a headline.
delicious
digg
facebook
