Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Iraq, Euro, Convention on the Future of Europe, Reshuffle and Fire Dispute.
Iraq
Questioned about the national conference which we were working towards holding in the coming weeks, the PMOS said that a lot of work was taking place to make this happen, as you would expect. Two relatively large conferences had already been held in the past few weeks - one in Nasiriyah and one in Baghdad. There was a clear desire to ensure that as many people as possible within Iraq were involved. We had always said that this was not simply about parachuting people in from the outside. It went without saying that everyone wanted to see a representative body in place. However, it was important for people to understand that this would be an interim authority. After that we would begin the process of moving towards a settled representative government. Asked how long that would take, the PMOS said that we were taking things one stage at a time. It would not be helpful to start speculating about timetables at this point. We wanted the conference establishing the IIA to be held within a matter of weeks. However, it would clearly be some time before we would be able to move on from the IIA and see a fully representative government in Iraq. Questioned about the establishment of an Iraqi constitution, the PMOS said that it would obviously be the subject of a lot of discussion by the IIA. ORHA was continuing to carry out good work on the ground in terms of stabilising the situation in Iraq. It had always been recognised that it would run in parallel with the IIA in the first instance. Questioned as to whether Iraq would hold a referendum on its constitution, the PMOS said that we were talking about having a democratically elected Government as the end product. These were clearly issues which would have to be worked out in the coming months. In the meantime we were working towards setting up an IIA which would attract people from a wide range of different groups and religious background in Iraq.
Asked to characterise the UN’s role in Iraq as outlined in the draft Resolution currently circulating among the P5, the PMOS said that the view of the Prime Minister and President Bush remained as set out. We believed that the UN had a vital role to play. Equally it was important to recognise that the Coalition would not be subservient to the UN or vice versa. They would work in partnership. The Prime Minister had always made it clear that there was a deal to be done if people wanted it. We would have to wait and see how the matter was approached in the weeks to come. The reality on the ground was that there were a quarter-of-a-million Coalition forces inside Iraq at the current time. No one was seriously suggesting that they should be handed over to UN control. The central aim and objective for the international community as a whole was to make Iraq a better place for the Iraqi people. Asked which country was delaying the deal, the PMOS said that there was clearly a lot of discussion to be had about the text of the draft Resolution. It had not even been tabled yet. There were a number of complex issues which had be worked through, as you would expect. We were approaching this matter constructively, and we hoped and believed that others would do the same. Equally, as the Prime Minister had said in a briefing en route to Moscow last week, we had no intention of going through the type of rigmarole last seen with the ’second-Resolution-that-wasn’t’ in the run up to the Iraq conflict. Questioned as to whether France and Russia supported the draft Resolution, the PMOS pointed out that the text had only been circulated today. He reminded journalists that the Prime Minister had felt that his discussions with President Putin in Moscow last week had been constructive, although of course there was no point in trying to second-guess other countries’ positions. Obviously, there would be a lot of diplomatic traffic and international conversation about the Resolution in the weeks to come. In the meantime, we remained firmly of the view that if everyone remained focussed on the prize and endgame - an Iraq run by and for the Iraqi people themselves - it should be possible to navigate our way through some of the more complex diplomatic issues to everyone’s satisfaction.
Asked to explain what a further UN Resolution would achieve, the PMOS said he did not think it would be helpful, or appropriate, to brief on the detail of the draft text other than to say that it focussed on issues such as the lifting of sanctions and the Oil-for-Food Programme. There were also political and humanitarian issues. The sanctions had been imposed under existing Resolutions and had been designed to target the Iraqi regime which had been developing a WMD programme. They had not been put in place to target the Iraqi people. Questioned about the Oil-for-Food Programme, the PMOS said that at the moment, authority rested with the Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, given the fact that the regime which had been ‘administering’ it - or rather abusing it - had now ceased to exist.
Responding to reports about a potential cholera epidemic in Iraq, the PMOS pointed out that only a small number of cases had been reported in Basra. The World Health Organisation was working with the Basra province department of Public Health to contain them, with the UK military providing assistance. He said it was important to recognise that cholera was endemic in the region. For example, in Sulaimaniyah in 1999, there had been over 2,000 cases. In November 1999, UNICEF had found that more than 50% of children aged between twenty-four months and six years throughout Iraq had either diarrhoea, acute respiratory tract infection or both. It was also important to remember that Saddam had used water as a weapon of control to repress parts of the country, particularly in Shia areas in the south. What was different now was that the world’s media were able to film inside Iraq and report what was happening. What was also different was the fact that Saddam’s regime had disappeared and that we were now there on the ground. Brian Burridge, the Commander of British forces in Iraq, had said on the Today Programme this morning that 80% of the population in Basra now had running water - more than ever before. Of course no one was saying that there weren’t any public health challenges facing us. There were. However, in relation to how they were presented, it was important not to suffer from amnesia. The situation in the past under Saddam had been acute.
Asked whether other countries might offer to contribute to a stabilisation force in Iraq in the light of a meeting in London today, and whether it would mean that British troops would be able to return home, the PMOS said that today’s meeting was one of a series of conferences which had taken place to discuss the issue. As he understood it, a number of countries had come forward to offer assistance in different ways. However, it was too early to map out precisely what that meant in terms of force rotation.
Euro
Asked whether Cabinet had discussed the Euro today, the PMOS said no. We were still on course to publish the assessment by the June timetable set out again by the Chancellor in the Budget. Asked when an announcement would be made, the PMOS said that a decision had not been taken at this stage. Questioned as to whether a Special Cabinet had been pencilled in to discuss the issue, the PMOS said not at this point. It went without saying that there would be a Cabinet discussion, as you would expect.
Convention on the Future of Europe
Questioned by the Daily Mail correspondent about the paper’s splash today and whether the Prime Minister was concerned about the proposals emerging from the Convention on the Future of Europe, the PMOS noted that the Mail article had kicked off with the sentence "Few people realise it, but a thousand years of our national independence could in a few short months be at an end". He pointed out that the reason why so few people realised it was because it wasn’t true. It was important for people to approach this issue in a calm, reasoned manner and strip away some of the overblown rhetoric. The Future of Europe Convention had been set up to deal with the fact that EU membership was being increased from fifteen to twenty five. This was because it was good for Europe’s security and prosperity to enlarge eastwards. However, as everyone had accepted at the last inter-governmental conference (IGC) at Nice in 2000, the EU would simply not be able to carry out its business using the same institutional architecture. We were approaching this matter constructively. The Convention on the Future of Europe had been set up by member states at Laeken in December 2001. Next month, it would produce a draft EU constitutional treaty which reflected its discussions. But that was not the end of it. In many ways, it was only the beginning of the process. Member states would have a few months to digest the draft, and then - probably in the autumn - begin the next IGC. During that negotiation, all decisions would be taken by unanimity. The result would be a treaty to which EU members, as sovereign states, had decided they want to be party. The treaty would then be subject to ratification by national parliaments before it could enter into force. Questioned about the Charter of Rights, the PMOS drew journalists’ attention to the Prime Minister’s speech in Cardiff in which he had said that "we welcome a declaration of basic rights common to all European citizens and have ourselves incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights directly into British law. We cannot support a form of treaty incorporation that would enlarge EU competence over national legislation."
In answer to questions, the PMOS pointed out that there were in fact some areas where we would actually welcome the introduction of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) because it would speed things up which would be of benefit to this country. Equally, as the Prime Minister himself had underlined, there were other areas in which we were not prepared to see any change - such as member states losing control over their foreign policy. No one was suggesting that the Convention on the Future of Europe, and the IGC which would follow it, would result in the end of the nation state. We had been crystal clear from the outset that that would not happen. Questioned repeatedly by the Sun as to whether there would be a referendum, the PMOS reminded the correspondent that he himself had asked the Prime Minister this question when he had interviewed him just before the Easter recess. The Prime Minister’s reply had not changed in the intervening period. Questioned as to why the Prime Minister didn’t want to hold a referendum in the UK when he was insisting that Iraq should hold a referendum on their new constitution, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had pointed out many times in the past, there had been no referendum on the Maastricht Treaty and he did not see the need for one in this case either. Yes, we had said that there would be a referendum on the single currency should the Government recommend joining it. However, the IGC was a different matter altogether.
Asked if the Prime Minister was confident that enough had been done to explain the role of the Convention to the British public, the PMOS said that once the Convention had concluded and people could see for themselves what decisions had been reached, obviously a lot of attention would be focussed on the substance. We had explained at great length why we believed that EU enlargement was vital for European and British interests. The Convention and the IGC flowed from it.
Reshuffle
Asked when the Prime Minister would announce replacements for Ministers and Lords who had resigned, the PMOS said that standard reshuffle questions got the standard answer - namely, we never commented on reshuffles, as journalists were well aware.
Fire Dispute
Asked about the possibility of another rebellion today in relation to the Fire Services Bill, the PMOS said that the way people voted was a matter for them. But we now at the point where the dispute had been dragging on for a number of months. The FBU could no longer credibly claim that it had much - if indeed any - public support for its stance. People recognised that wage demands of the order of 40% were simply unrealistic when we were in a low inflationary climate. However, an offer of 16% over three years, with money tied to modernisation and with some transitional funding from the Government, did offer a way through. That said, this was a quid pro quo situation. If more money was wanted, it had to be found - and the only way that could happen was through change and releasing savings. Unfortunately this offer had been rejected. Asked why the Prime Minister wasn’t meeting backbenchers as he had yesterday before the vote on foundation hospitals, the PMOS said that the way the Whips conducted their business was a matter for them. He was simply making the point that after months of discussion and negotiation where we had been as reasonable as we could be, we had reached the stage that we would take certain powers in the absence of an agreement. However, given the fact that it could take some weeks for the legislation to go through the House, there was still an opportunity for the FBU to reach a negotiated settlement. We hoped that firemen and women up and down the country would see the logic in doing so.
delicious
digg
facebook
