Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Asylum, Women in the Armed Forces, Street Crime, Referenda and Europe.
Asylum
Asked to confirm reports that we were in talks with the French to close Sangatte - the idea being that we would take in all the asylum seekers currently there, after which the French would close the place down, the PMOS said he did not recognise that characterisation of where we were.
Asked whether we were in talks with the French about Sangatte’s closure, the PMOS said that the Home Secretary had stated clearly his intention to continue conversations with the French Government about Sangatte. He was planning to meet the new French Interior Minister after the French elections had taken place.
Asked if that meant that the issue was currently in abeyance, the PMOS said no. The Home Secretary had expressed his unequivocal view that it would be better if Sangatte were closed. However, Sangatte was not within our jurisdiction. Consequently, we had to work with whoever was in Government in France to try to deal with the problem. Our representations about Sangatte and Frethun would continue.
At the same time, we recognised that there was a broader issue further back down the line which also had to be addressed. The Prime Minister had written to Prime Minister Aznar last week to try to get those issues pushed further up the agenda at Seville. Thankfully, Prime Minister Aznar appeared to be well attuned to those issues and seemed to share our analysis of them.
Questioned as to whether it was possible that the UK might take in the refugees currently staying at Sangatte, the PMOS cautioned journalists against getting too ahead of themselves and underlined that he did not recognise the scenario being described.
Asked whether we were encouraged by the fact that the French appeared to be beginning to think that the closure of Sangatte was one of the better options, the PMOS said that as he had stated earlier this week in relation to Mr Aznar’s visit, there was evidence that the political climate on the issue of asylum was changing throughout Europe, which was something we obviously welcomed. However, it did not help to leapfrog the discussions that were taking place.
Asked if he would agree that the fact that Le Pen had done so well in the area where Sangatte was located had caused the French about-turn, the PMOS said that he was employed to be the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman, not a political analyst.
Put to him by PA that Sangatte belonged to the Red Cross and that it was therefore up to them to close the centre rather than the French authorities, the PMOS remarked that, as always, PA’s instinct for accuracy was spot on.
Women in the Armed Forces
Asked why Geoff Hoon’s announcement regarding the status of women in the armed forces had been made via a PQ rather than a Statement to the House, the PMOS said that he had answered the question this morning. As a result of the nature of the announcement - and based on official advice given several weeks ago - it had been decided that this was a perfectly acceptable way to make it.
Street Crime
Asked whether this morning’s street crime meeting had taken place under the auspices of COBRA, the PMOS noted how amazing it was that journalists could get so excited by the word ‘COBRA’. He said that the meeting today had indeed been held in the Cabinet Office, although he was not entirely sure what room. That said, a large number of people had attended, so it was just possible it could have taken place in that secret location called COBRA - but only because it was the only room that could accommodate them all comfortably.
Referenda
Asked which Department was in charge of referenda, the PMOS said that the mechanics of any legislation in terms of how referenda were set up were now the responsibility of DTLR. A decision to hold any referendum was not a matter for that, or any other single department.
Europe
Asked for a reaction to Romano Prodi’s call for a ‘grand political project to pave the way for a supranational democracy in Europe’, the PMOS said that the European Commission was perfectly entitled to put forward its view on the future of Europe. Some of those views, such as the proposal for QMV on asylum, were ones which we would welcome.
Equally, there were others which we would not - and nor did we believe that we would be the only EU country opposing them. The important point was that all the ideas being put forward would be considered by the Future of Europe Convention and then brought before the next IGC, due to begin in 2004. In the end, any change would have to be agreed unanimously by all member states.
Asked whether we would have to wait for unanimity on asylum before tackling the problem, the PMOS said no. As we had outlined earlier this week, we would continue to put in place and develop individual measures to deal with the issue, such as the UK-Italian initiative in the Balkans.
Asked why the Government would want to hold a referendum on the Euro before 2004, i.e. before the IGC, the PMOS said that if journalists really believed that he would answer that question, they had another think coming. Next!
Asked if the Government’s approach was to downplay the role of the European Commission and boost that of the European Council, the PMOS said we had never doubted that the Commission had a role to play - and a valuable one at that. Equally, we recognised that ‘democratic legitimacy’ flowed from individual Parliaments to national governments to the European Council.
delicious
digg
facebook
